It is unlawful to be in possession of a firearm while hunting with a broadhead HUNTING point during the Archery-Only season, except a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Texas may carry a concealed handgun.

NOTE: A firearm may be possessed in camp, in a motor vehicle, or while hunting lawful game other than whitetail or mule deer and turkey (e.g., exotics, feral hogs, squirrels).

Archery and crossbow equipment may NOT be used to hunt deer during the Muzzleloader-Only Deer Season.

Page 56 of your Texas Parks & Wildlife Outdoor Annual Hunting and Fishing Regulations handbook. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/annual/hunt/means/

Two very interesting points you bring up.

1. Unethical is a complex word.

Is it more ethical to harvest a deer with a long bow or shoot it in the ear with a rifle? Assuming equally good shot placement, it is hard to argue that the long bow is NOT more painful to the animal and a bloodier, slower death. If I were choosing how I was going to die in battle, I vote for the bullet in my left ear rather than an arrow through my lungs.

For the niche of people who hunt with spears (I have only met one person who has actually harvested a whitetail with a spear), how would you react to him telling you that you are unethical because you use a mechanical instrument to launch a projectile instead of your own body strength? Where is the line of what you call unethical?

Or, is it unethical to hunt for sport in general? Should you only be allowed to "harvest" a deer if you are in NEED of food? The word "harvest" does sound a lot like farming.

If you are hunting for food, young does taste better than old bucks. So we should harvest yearlings, like we butcher cattle at a young age. Which is more unethical, to kill yearling does for the best meat or old bucks for the best trophy antlers?

My grandmother shot the first whitetail she saw – male or female – because was not hunting for sport. She was “harvesting” meat. There were no early mornings, deer stands or deer blinds. In fact, you could argue that her vegetable garden doubled as a “food plot.” Was she unethical with her open sight 30-30 shooting from the door of her mobile home?

Why is hunting the mott of oak trees ok, but hunting the waterhole unethical as I mentioned above?

2. Private Property Rights vs. Public Property Rights

I don't think you mean that you would trespass on someone's land to shoot a wild animal? If you do, then how do you rationalize the ethics of that action? PS: You do realize that if you trespass on private land with a weapon you will either go to jail, get a big fine, or be killed by the landowner.

Texas, unlike many other states, is 95%+ private lands. However, the sun, wind, water (not always), and wildlife (not always) are property of the State.

If I choose to raise cows, can you come and harvest my cow - of course not. If I choose to raise quail, turkey, whitetail, pigs, or any other animal - just because that animal also exists in the wild somewhere - does that mean you have a right to harvest it on my land? Of course not. What if I have a natural grove of apple trees and wild berries, are you allowed to trespass and "harvest" the wild fruit on my land? No.

Your comments should serve as a wake up call for those who do not realize the perils facing the future of hunting as a sport, as a food source, and as a symbol of the rugged individualism that has defined America's past. Whether you believe your comments, or are just enjoying stirring the pot, I for one appreciate your posts (as long as there are not personal attacks involved.)

DID YOU KNOW: The domestic dog is the most widespread deer predator at present. Dogs of most breeds, whether feral or pets, will chase and attempt to kill deer. Dogs usually eat very little of their kill. - White-tailed Deer: Ecology and Management

This is from the Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks website.

In the first post above from the National Park Service, I feel like it is written with a political agenda, not with Truth as the priority. But then again, I have never been to the property and probably should keep my mouth shut.

1. The dove/quail comment is the same for anywhere.

2. The "deer" comment doesn't mention that we are talking about "Desert Mule Deer" which are pretty use to the local environment.

3. I am not aware of a wild hog in this area, but could be wrong. I would have thought when they mentioned "exotic species" that they would have mentioned Aoudad.

4. Are there any Aoudad, Big Horn, or other types of Rams?

5. How about hunting mountain lion, bobcat, and coyote?

6. The "extra info" about Javelina has nothing to do with the local javelina population, and only the last sentence is about the specific rules/regulations in the local county.

7. On one hand they mention that the neighboring ranches are a source of concern if they were to allow high-powered rifles for hunting; then they also express concern that the hunting on neighboring ranches and of course, the poaching, "may" effect the wildlife on the Christmas Mountains. Since when does one landowner have a say over another landowner hunting? Are there not already laws in place regarding neighbor property, shooting across property lines, and tracking animals across property lines? All the NPS anti-hunting arguments seem to be inflated and the pro-hunting arguments seem to be minimized.

I am not an expert of this property by any means, but after reading about the current hunting season on the NEIGHBORING property, it seems someone at the National Park Service is not doing a good job at reporting the simple facts. We don't need opinions, we need the simple facts.

Editorial in today's newspaper:

Texas a grinch for putting Christmas Mountains for sale
EDITORIAL BOARD
Tuesday, September 11, 2007

The School Land Board, led by Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, intends to sell 9,269 acres in the Christmas Mountains, just northwest of Big Bend National Park. The land was given to the state in 1991 as a gift from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, which donated it through the Virginia-based Conservation Fund.

The state should not sell the land, even though there would be considerable restrictions on how the it could be used by a new owner. A sale would set a terrible precedent for any future donor thinking about giving land to a state that might be more inclined to flip it to some well-heeled buyer.

Money from selling the land would go to a worthy cause, the Permanent School Fund, whose holdings are invested on behalf of public education. But the amount of money reaped from the land sale would make little practical difference to the huge school fund.

Besides, the land office says money isn't the point of the sale, but the need to take care of the land. Poachers and invasive species aren't being checked because no state agency has the means to do it. Patterson notes that his office is not in the parks business, and the Parks and Wildlife Department, which is, has been starved financially by the Legislature for years. Though Parks and Wildlife got a considerable budget boost this year, it will take years for it to recover, and it rightfully has higher priorities now than more land acquisition in far West Texas.

Once a new owner has a conservation plan for the Christmas Mountains in place, the public will gain some access to it, Patterson said. Major deed restrictions, he noted, will prevent any development -- and most vehicles -- on the land.

The General Land Office, which Patterson directs, reports six bidders, but details remain confidential. The School Land Board will meet Sept. 18 to award a bid.

Patterson wants to make this an ideological argument by attacking what he says is an idea that a private owner can't be as good a steward of the land as the government. In this case, he said, a private owner would be a better steward than the state has been.

Maybe, but only because those now in control of the state, in particular the Legislature, have refused to take responsibility for raising the taxes or fees necessary. It's rather like a parent neglecting a child for years and then complaining that his teeth are rotten.

But the solution isn't to sell the child or dump land that, some day, Texans who don't have the means to buy their own thousand-acre playgrounds might want back for their own use and enjoyment.

There's no pressing need to sell the land, which one of the bidders called "handsome scenery." Invasive species and poachers might do some damage now, but it's damage that can be reversed.

The real damage will occur if groups such as the Conservation Fund and the Mellon Foundation, which oppose this sale and might challenge it in court, spread the word across the nation that there's no point in giving Texas a part of itself back.

Patterson should stop the sale.