The use of food plots, supplemental feeding, and baiting has been a common and legal practice in Texas for many years. There is now controversy as to whether Texas Parks and Wildlife Department should include this extra nutrition as part of their carrying capacity estimates used to determine harvest permits for private landowners. Managers should remember that nutrition is only one component of carrying capacity, which includes water, shelter, and space as well. Extensive data exists about the potential negative impact of feeding on deer. Studies in Texas (Murden and Risenhoover 1993) have shown that fed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) can degrade rangeland by overconsuming high-quality plants and underconsuming low-quality plants. Guiterrez (1999) did not find that effect when South Texas deer were offered winter food plots. Donier et al. (1997) found in Minnesota that winter supplementation increased browse pressure within 900 m of feeders. Other reports (Williamson 2000) show increased browse pressure within a 1-mile radius of feeders, perhaps due to concentration of deer. Cooper et al. (2002) found 50% kemal home range sizes of fed deer were half that of unfed deer and that browse pressure near the feeder was 7 times that of unfed deer. Supplemental feeding has been suspected of contributing to the spread of tuberculosis in deer, chronic wasting disease in elk (Cervus canadensis) and deer, and brucellosis in elk and bison (Bison bison; Williamson 2000). Crowding due to supplemental feeding led to fighting and injuries in Michigan deer (Ozoga 1972). Feeding has actually led to starvation in deer due to increases in population when feeding was initiated (McCullough 1977, Schmitz 1990). Supplemental feed is consumed by nontarget species, possibly leading them to pass disease and to attract predators. Cooper and Ginnett (2000) found decreased survivorship of simulated turkey nests within 400 m of deer feeders in Texas. In 1998 we found illegal levels of aflatoxin in 40% of 100 randomly purchased bags of "deer corn" in Texas (N. Wilkins, Texas Cooperative Extension, USA, unpublished data). The ecological significance of deer feeding and baiting is only part of the issue. Feeding leads to ethical questions as well. Feeding is part of the domestication process, along with fencing, breeding, and health programs that, due to their expense, may lead to the desire for private ownership of wildlife. Baiting, likewise, adds to the advantages of the hunter over the hunted and may decrease hunter satisfaction and increase concerns of the antihunters and the nonhunting public (Ortega y Gasset 1995). Deer managers and agency personnel should review the data presented here and incorporate it into their decision making when considering feeding or baiting of deer.
Although some of us might feel that the argument made above is flawed, this is a real opinion shared by many.
Unlike certain posts that are complaints without adding any insight or value to the community, I think this post should make us all think about how "others" looking at our heritage.
You are correct in that it is a viewpoint that is shared by many. And I will be happy to discuss it. I think that it's important to shed light on the responsibility that is involved when it comes to deer management and using different tools (supplemental feed, high fence, etc.) to improve deer herds.
I have no problem and had no problem with hearing viewpoints of either this poster, or the past one. Just the methods that the previous poster was using.
You can't domesticate something unless you put your hands on it and line breed it. Deer breeding is a step towards domestication... Feeding deer is not.
The Indians used bait and every other way that they could to harvest animals. I don't know why I should be held to a higher standard.
Let me open by stating that supplemental feeding, food plots and highfencing are management tools that used correctly and with responsibility can not only be beneficial to the overall health of the deer herd, they can improve dramatically the entire ecosystem of a certain piece of property.
Because of this I can see the value of and use extremely successfully all of these tools.
That being said, I am NOT a proponent of supplemental feeding NOR high fencing without a complete understanding of the property, the plants and the animals involved.
Misused, they can both be extremely detrimental to the habitat, the animals themselves and to the idea of "fair chase". It is in these instances that the ideas of these practices being bad or dangerous are formed.
The lack of information and the lack of understanding this information, unfortunately allows many to form opinions that are completely one-sided, unyielding and inaccurate.
This is not unlike the anti-gun lobby.
I will start debating the individual points of this initial argument tonight.
Here we go...a true debate with facts and sources, too. I like it!!
This is what a good post should look like. I am going to take a bit and do some more digging and digesting of what was presented, but I believe our friends down at the Kerr WMA, Tarleton State University (Go Texans!), A&M, and Angelo State have all looked into the effects of supplemental feeding also. Since this is TEXAShuntfish, I would think their findings would be most applicable for most of the users of this site.
The dude lost me with the closing statement "Feeding ... may decrease hunter satisfaction... (Ortega y Gasset 1995)." This statement is highly speculative and, from a personal stand point, incorrect. When my 8 walks out in the open, regardless of whether its under a feeder or out of a thicket, IF I drop him I will be on top of the world....and you may all kiss his antlers. :)
The days I have a decrease in "hunter satisfaction" are the days I'm not in the field.
Why you can't let nature take it's course..... Humans have had a dramatic impact on the ecology of North America. Among other things, they have altered landscapes, changed and manipulated plant communities, displaced large predators, eliminated a variety of native species, and introduced numerous exotics. Natural systems and regulatory processes have changed as a result of these impacts.
Deer evolved under intense predation and hunting pressure. In precolonial times Native American tribes hunted throughout the year for deer and depended on them as their primary food source. Mountain lions, wolves, bobcats, and bears all utilized the precolonial deer resource. The high reproductive capability of present-day herds likely reflects intense predation and hunting in the past. As a consequence, it would seem inaccurate to describe a deer herd in today’s environment, with few if any predators and no hunters, as “natural.” In fact, active management in the form of population control seems to be a more natural option than the “hands off” approach. Active deer population management offers distinct ecological, social, and economic benefits to society. Adopting a “hands off” policy will not restore Texas' ecosystems to a pristine state.
In the absence of deer population control, deer herds would grow until they reached the upper limit, at which they could be sustained by local habitat. Herds at this “upper density limit” consist of deer in relatively poor health. High density herds such as these are prone to cyclic population fluctuations and catastrophic losses. Such herds would be incompatible with local human interests and land use practices. An uncontrolled deer population will grow until all available foods have been consumed. Only after food is limited will population’s start to regulate themselves by reduced reproduction.
The results of a deer population allowed to consume all available foods will be loss of many plants, shrubs, and young trees that are necessary for other wildlife species to survive. Some plant communities may be totally destroyed. Damage to agricultural crops and ornamentals would be severe. Numbers of deer would create safety hazards on highways and increase the likelihood of Lyme disease.
Alright...Let's get started. This may get a little long-winded, but hang with me. I'll try to get to everything, but it will take a while.
Despite who wrote this, I do feel the need to debate this. We'll start with the first part and move on from there (tomorrow).
"There is now controversy as to whether Texas Parks and Wildlife Department should include this extra nutrition as part of their carrying capacity estimates used to determine harvest permits for private landowners."
Where's the controversy? Of course they should.It’s been proven that quality management practices can produce higher densities of whitetails on given acreage, while at the same time maintaining or even increasing the overall health of the herd.Stem counts done by wildlife biologists here at several of the ranches I am associated with have helped to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.Stem counts have indicated that certain ranches here were running at 1 deer per 20 or more acres (a number that has been recommended for years here), when in reality the ratio was much closer to 1 deer per 5 acres.These numbers and the ability to keep native habitats consistent with low density levels or even improve upon existing conditions are due to supplemental feeding and food plots…period.
Food plots are the very reason for most of the success and size of the mid-western, northern and Canadian whitetails.The only difference is that they are in the form of farmers’ crops.They are THE reason that the deer can exist in the numbers and at the size that they do in most of these areas.It only makes sense that you could increase your carrying capacity by implementing them in Texas where the one thing that is lacking is big-time agriculture.
Simple math tells you that the more deer you carry the more you have to take to maintain your population goals, thus more permits are necessary.
By the way, more deer and permits mean more opportunity for hunters.Even if you can’t afford or don’t have access to these places, every other hunter that does isn’t competing with you for leases or on public lands.
In addition it now takes tracts that were previously thought to be too small to maintain large enough numbers of deer to have any real value, both monetarily and in terms of hunter opportunity, and turned them into worthwhile investments and hunting leases.
The benefits of the ability to save and change these small tracts has traveled far outside the realm of the whitetail, improving habitat for all of the native wildlife and restoring many over-grazed and hunted or poached out tracts to pristine conditions.
Deer are suppose to be wild animals living and adapting to their natural habitat. Herd size and population densities maintained in balance with the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. Artificially increasing food resoures in a particular area concentrates deer in that area leading to the spread of disease. In their natural state, deer have a fear of humans. However, when people feed deer, they lose this fear, becoming less wild and often semi-domesticated. Fed deer get conditioned and become emboldened to seek human provided foods often foresaking natural foods. People often treat the deer they feed as if they own them, even going so far as to name individual deer and then try to prevent other people from hunting "their" deer that they have worked so hard and paid to feed. Not only does this association diminish the “wildness” of “wildlife”, it also leads to a mistaken notion regarding ownership of wildlife. Deer and other wildlife are supposed to be owned by citizens of the state and should be managed by the Wildlife Management Agencies as a public resource. So even if you feed "your" deer other members of the general public have the legal right to hunt them.
Like navigable water, wildlife is held in public trust and managed by the states for the benefit of all citizens (Roosevelt Doctrine, North American Wildlife Policy, see Leopold 1933:17-18). Thus, wildlife privatization is currently a major policy issue nation-wide. Baiting and feeding are forms of wildlife privatization as deer are attracted to and held (managed) on private lands. We (state agencies and hunters) should be doing all that we can to discourage this trend, even though there are strong political and market forces pushing toward wildlife privatization.
The uneven distribution of hunter access to the deer herd created by the patchwork of public and private lands and what could be termed as deer game farms results in uneven distribution of deer, i.e., hot spots and cold spots. Because baiting and feeding tend to attract and hold deer to the food sources, these practices seem to exacerbate the patchiness of deer distribution, the problems of hunter confidence in population estimates, the acceptance of harvest quotas, and in turn the difficulty in effectively managing the public’s deer resource.
The ethics surrounding deer baiting continue to concern many hunters and Law Enforcement officials. But, more fundamental and compelling concerns remain as discussed above. There appears to be sufficient biological concerns to outright prohibit deer baiting by hunters as they don't NEED bait to be successful and state agnecies don't NEED bait to achieve management goals (to the contrary). Not only is baiting not necessary for the state agencies to achieve their management goals, but a biological analysis suggests baiting and supplemental feeding actually interferes with that effort. A recent national survey indicated that 26 states have prohibitions banning baiting and feeeding of deer (Marshall 1999) for these very reasons.
But, it is clear that the biological effects of both baiting AND FEEDING are similar so both must be regulated. An outright ban on both would clearly obviate all biological concerns and would be most easily codified. A ban on baiting would simply affect some hunters. However, a ban on feeding affects a much broader public. The Wildlife Management Institute has published a booklet discouraging feeding of any wildlife (Williamson 2000). But, prohibiting all feeding in every state may be impractical or impossible. As a total ban is not reasonable, restriction could actually remove the substantial nature of disease risk to deer if enforced and would certainly address privatization and other concerns.
Hey guys it dosent matter as long as he is in his own thread and not ruining others, if you feel it is the same guy and the same crap then dont respond.
My point at the beginning of this thread is that it doesn't matter. There is a big difference between someone making worthless comments and jabs versus sharing an opinion that we might find foolish and unfounded.
The sad reality is that there are people who believe the comments that "Dick Higgins" is cutting and pasting.
Whether NYYankee or rwg15 - there will always be people who troll the forums. Some of the comments above are excellent responses to the posts by rwg15.
Im not sure of the point of your post, you list only the negative side of feeding deer. Yours seems more like a book report on a TP&W leaflet. Where did you get the information you quoted? Could it have been from this one ? It list the positive and negatives !
PETA sent a letter to government officials urging them to implement immediate relief measures so that deer will receive the sustenance that they require while effective, humane, and long-term measures to control their population are weighed, but officials have not responded. Please politely ask officials to act immediately so that the remaining Miyajima deer will not starve to death or suffer abuse at the hands of those inclined to harm them.
The point of the ariticle is clear. All you boys are of the opinion that you own the deer you feed, but by law they belong to the public trust. So stop feeding my frickin deer let em find their own food like a wild animal is suppose to do, instead of feeding em like barnyard domestic animals so you can charge people outrages sums of money to shoot them. Worst yet you are domesticating wild game whether you accept that fact or not. In additon the majority of the population including hunters and non-hunters view high fencing and shooting deer under feeders with rifles as unsportsmen like, and unethical kinda like shooting pigs in the pen. Wild game animals should not be exploited for profit. So pay me back the money you owe me for charging fees to shoot my deer. Ya bunch of deer farming sheep herders.
"My point at the beginning of this thread is that it doesn't matter. There is a big difference between someone making worthless comments and jabs versus sharing an opinion that we might find foolish and unfounded."
I agree Jason...and it feels like we have crossed that line again. I tried to give it a 2nd chance and debate him, but there is NO interest in discussion. Simply a rabid opinionist, not unlike the anti gunners that wants to try and run down things he doesn't understand and has no interest in hearing the truth about.
I think we all had to know this guy would hang himself.
Although I disagree with your comments and conclusions, we here at TexasHuntFish.com want our forum to entertain the full spectrum of opinions.
Your more recent posts have departed from an attempt to express an unpopular opinion, and become non-educational, non-informative "jabs" for lack of a better word.
Respected members of our forum have also responded with comments that do not contribute to the eduational value of this thread.
As a result, with an effort to honor people's opinions, we have deleted a number of comments from a number of members in this thread.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING INFORMATIVE TO SAY, PLEASE DON'T RESPOND WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS THAT ADD NO VALUE.
Couple of points I wanted to make:
In Texas, the landowner does NOT own the wildlife on the land.
The industry of Deer Farming did not start in Texas and is not unique to Texas.
People profit from wildlife in many ways more than hunting. Animal Planet, National Geographic, and every grocery and pet store that sells wild bird seed. Where do you draw the line?
I can't tell what you stand for?
If I don't hunt over a feeder, but I set up my bow blind in the forest where all the oak trees are clustered, knowing that this greatly increases my chances of seeing a deer, am I cheating in your eyes?
If I spend 40 hours scouting before season and set up my bow blind at the only permanent water hole for a square mile in west or south texas, knowing that all of the wildlife will be coming to the water, am I cheating?
When deer hunting, if I use a compound bow versus a recurve bow, am I cheating? If I use a crossbow instead of a compound bow, am I cheating? If I use a pistol instead of a crossbow, am I cheating? If I use a .12Ga slug instead of a pistol, am I cheating? If I use an open sight 30-30 instead of a shotgun am I cheating? If I use a 300 win mag with a 20x scope am I cheating? Where is the line? What defines cheating?
If I hunt on a 75,000 ranch that is high-fenced, am I cheating? It takes about 6 hours to drive the fence line of this ranch in Maverick County. Yes, it is high-fenced because of poachers, illegal immigrants, and to contain their significant investment in managing their deer over the last 20 years. At what size ranch does high fence make it cheating in your opinion?
Do you think anyone on this forum supports a deer breeder releasing a 200 class buck into a 50 acre high fence enclosure for some city slicker to come shoot with his 9x scoped .300 win mag while drinking four cold beers? Of course we don't.
To summarize, WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR? WHAT ARE YOUR SOLUTIONS? EDUCATE, INFORM, BUT REMEMBER THIS IS A FAMILY FRIENDLY FORUM.
Pretty much everything but the oak tree part is not cheating but unethical. I shoot a long bow never needed training wheels on my bow. Cracks me up to see pictures of these dudes with the deer they shot under a feeder like their some great hunter. Takes no skill man. As far as high fence yeah its cheating like huntin in a zoo. Say you shot a world record behind that high fence would it count NO. Boone and Crockett and Pope and Young don't recognize game farm animals. First you say the landowner doesn't own the wildlife your right then you say put up a high fence to protec their significant investment in managing "their deer" sorry don't care how much money ya spend feeding fencing hell you can put horse shoes on em they don't belong to you and I'm goin to shoot em and put em on my wall thanks for feedin em.
Hey dick we would love for you to share some pictures of these deer that you have killed using your method of hunting as well with a long bow. Its actually impressive if you did shoot one with a long bow, takes a lot of skill. BUT!!!!! we havent seen ANY pitures of deer you have killed. You know what they say about talk the talk, walk the walk. You have done more than your fair share of talkin, now prove that you have walked the walk!! In other words PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!!!
I love the fact that for some reason the long bow is the only "ethical" weapon. I didn't get that memo from God or whoever makes these rules, did any of the rest of you?
When the native americans were introduced to more accurate and more efficient weapons, do you think they just ignored them and kept wounding and missing game with long bows? (sorry to others on the board, that was personal...I don't like them. If you do, that's great).
And you refer to Boone & Crockett and Pope & Young as basically the Gods on ethics and recognizing world records, and yet they absolutely DO award the same animals that are shot on food plots, ag fields, OVER BAIT, and with weapons other than the almighty longbow. And I hate to burst your bubble, but they'll also recognize fencing. Just not 8' fencing. Sorry to say, but 6' fencing works very nearly as well. And there are many down here using it. They also recognize ranches that have limited areas open to fencing.
And what if I plant an oak tree? Isn't that then unethical?
And what about the crops that those farmers were planting where you hunted? It's okay for you to hunt well fed deer due to man's intervention in that instance? Is it only when it's intended to help the animal that it becomes wrong? Or maybe it's the confined funnels and corridors due to the land ares being used by the farmers that's somehow fair and ethical.
I've always gotten a kick out of "that guy" that thinks because he hunts with a certain firearm or says he only hunts public lands or some other BS that he's the supreme hunter, and yet he doesn't really understand much about the animal, or hunting at all. I'm actually sorry for you. I can't imagine being that short-sighted in life about anything.
You have no knowledge of what you spew. And it's unfortunate for everyone, especially people that might want to agree with certain points in your argument, that you are incapable of intelligent conversation or debate.
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.)
Don't really care what your weapon of choice is just said I use a longbow cause don't like compounds or releases or sights or all the other bells and whistles. Just don't think that baiting wild animals is hunting period. Was never concerned about the future of hunting till I moved to texas. You kinda make the point yourself your raising deer so you or the people that pay you can shoot em most everyone hunters and antis alike think somthin aint right about that.
May hava a few pictures from my younger days. But haven't really taken pictures of the deer I've shot with a bow. Ya see its between us - me and the deer. Would you like someone posted a picture of you after they knocked the snot outta ya. Don't really count em either but been shootin a longbow since my gramps made me my first one. Taken a deer every year with one since I was old enough to hunt. OK if ya don't believe me don't really care if you know or not.
For being someone that is so concerned about the things we are doing down here you sure did make a very alarming statement and i quote "Was never concerned about the future of hunting"! This is because all of your life you have never given back to the land/wildlife/enviroment because all you have done is take! So how is this not a negative impact on deer? You have still failed to address the debateble arguments made by the people of this forum, since you have run out of things to cut and past all we hear is the same things that we have been hearing for two weeks. So make some valid points show us some pics from your hunts and lets talk/debate.
I think you're skirting Jason's points here because your going back to the 'baiting' argument without defining what 'baiting' is.
You need to see at the very least that 'baiting' is a very subjective term. As we've discussed before (and to expand on Hardy's point a little more), up in NY the farmers often leave partial fields unharvested so that wildlife will feed. I know that to be the case because I've seen it done. But, using your reasoning is hunting around those fields considered 'baiting' when you know that the crops are still there and that the deer will come to feed on them? If true, are you saying the only ethical solution for the hunter/farmer is pick-up every cob or every remnant of crop so that the deer will not feed there? What about the issues Jason brings-up about a oak flat, or even a pecan orchard? Is hunting around an orchard baiting? We used to hunt around abandoned apple orchards all the time. You need to clarify exactly what you mean by 'baiting', because if you conclude the idea that any manmade food source is 'baiting' then you will not only bring a boatload more subjectivity to the definition (and I think barking up the wrong tree), but in effect eliminate most of the food sources deer use.
I find your arguments about the NE pretty ironic in light of what happened to me years ago when I lived in the NE. When I bought a license one year the fish and game department also gave me seeds to plant in the wild to enhance wildlife food sources. Now, if I remembered where I planted those seeds the next year, after these plants came up, would that be 'baiting'? BTW, the state never said that it was illegal to do so.
To get where I think you're heading, if I leave several cups of corn in an area that is not going to 'feed' any kind of population of deer, so I think your definition of 'feeding' deer is a little misleading. It might attract them and that's it. And, the ones I'm hunting aren't going to come anywhere near a feeder until nightfall, especially after the first shot is fired.
If you're talking about the outfitters/landowwners that feed protein at their ranches most of the ones I know would not shoot a deer around a protein feeder for the reasons you state. They can answer that for themselves, but the way I see it supplemental feeding is simply a game management tool and that's it.
And, to add on what Jason Lee just wrote, we used to call NY the 'alien nation'. Not because of the people but because of the wacky laws there. If I lived in a state that had strict limitations on what firearms I could use (i.e. no rifles except in the Adirondack Park area), severely restricted my season, and required that I go through a waiting period to buy a firearm, I'd be very concerned not only about the future of hunting but my right to keep and bear arms as well.
"May hava a few pictures from my younger days. But haven't really taken pictures of the deer I've shot with a bow. Ya see its between us - me and the deer. Would you like someone posted a picture of you after they knocked the snot outta ya. Don't really count em either but been shootin a longbow since my gramps made me my first one. Taken a deer every year with one since I was old enough to hunt. OK if ya don't believe me don't really care if you know or not."
Now this is some funny stuff. Horse-manure!
You have been all about YOU since you came on here...you and what you TAKE. All you've done is run everyone else down and promote yourself and your ideals. You haven't debated ONE point. Anyone who feels the need to crow about their views the way you do...please.
I do not share in Jason's opinion that anything you have brought to this forum has been beneficial. It's not that some of the ideas couldn't or wouldn't be, but they are completely lost because of the method and vehicle used to convey them.
This COULD have been a very interesting and educational debate for everyone and for people who have views on the many sides of the many arguments dealing with hunting, weaponry, baiting, fencing and fair chase. But it will never be, when one side sits atop it's soapbox and preaches while the other tries to discuss it.
Richard Noggin, why don't you take your negative attitude back to New York and hunt where you and NY-Yankmee grew up hunting. Nobody here gives a rats ass how yall do it back home. Obviously you never heard that everythings bigger in Texas and we plan on keeping that way and if that means feeding protein, running our feeders year round, supplemental feeding, etc. then thats what we'll do!!! Your nothing but a sausage wallet, quite hiding behind all your fictitous screen names and email addresses. Go back home, WE don't need you here in our great State of Texas.
Hardy,
Caught your show on TV this weekend, Great Stuff!!!! Nice to see that you and your Dad are doing things the right way. Let me know if you have anymore up coming shows. I miss the brush country in the lower Rio Grande Valley!!!
First of all stop with this great state of texas garbage. Unless your spending lots of money on leases and feeding your deer so you can shoot him under your feeder the wild deer in texas are not bigger they are dwarfs. By wild I mean deer not being "raised" to fatten em up for hunting season. You use the terms good management and wildlife management but really your just like cattle ranchers raisin cows so you can sell em to make money. Stop being so defensive I'm not defensive your the one that's defensive. You really struggle to rationalize and twist things around in your minds to justify what your doing. Like I have said before, the rest of the hunting community and more importantly the anti-hunting community look down upon every aspect of what you have twisted into your minds calling it sound management and wildlife managememt - you feed and bait deer - everyone else in the world thinks thats deplorable. You just keep given more issues for the anti's to put down real hunting. Why don't you just raise deer in a pen and take em to the butcher when they get the size ya want - save alot of money on weapons ammo high fencing feeding contraptions etc. That aint huntin. Leave the real huntin to real outdoorsman that shoot real wild deer in the wilderness by still hunting and stalking on the ground without having to pay a dime to no one for leases feeders box blinds and whatever else. What does a typical deer cost uz guyz in the great state of pay to much money to hunt anyway. For hunters it costs your license fee some gas money and your ammo thats it. Last year my hunting expenses were about $150.
Let's start from the beginning...Texas is a great place. But, if you don't like it, you're not obligated to stay here.
Hunters do spend money in this state to hunt, true. There's nothing most of us can do about it, so please quit going around in circles. I think you've said something along this line at least a dozen times now.
Man supplements a deer's food supply in many ways, whether you want to admit it or not. To take your logic to its inevitable end a farmer needs to pick-up every bit of his crop or he'll fatten up his deer...an orchard owner would have to make it impossible for any deer to feed on the orchard's products...a rancher would not dare to plant a field in clover because a deer might feed on it. And in any case you could not hunt in or near any of those places - just like hunters currently do in New York state where you say you are from. In other words, your reasoning just doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.
While I agree that the anti-hunters don't like what you call 'game management', they don't like hunting either. Trying to use anti-hunters to justify your position on hunting in Texas is like using a fox's ideas on fencing to justify protecting chickens. Not exactly an unbiased opinion.
To (again) defang your comment about baiting and feeding deer that "everyone in the world thinks its deplorable" that doesn't hold water either. Texas is not alone in that - a number of other states in this country allow feeders during deer season.
And your comment about leaving "the real huntin to real outdoorsman"...give us a break, OK? Is the fact that you don't pay make you a good hunter? WHAT? Are the techniques you put down here the only ones that you think are 'real hunting techniques'?
We don't plan on deleting this thread because it has caused a good debate about hunting ethics and personal preference on methods of harvest. However, it seems to be going in circles now and we definitely know where each person stands on certain issues.
If you would like to make a new point or bring in a new perspective, by all means, please do. But if you feel we're at the end of this debate and all that's left to do is throw out "personal blows," please just don't say anything at all.
Honestly, I'm used to clicking on the forum and being educated by you guys. I'm a novice, so I like reading your perspective and opinions and "absorbing" your knowledge and experience when I can. Thanks for that!
I'm all for debate of issues we disagree on, but you have yet to post any serious refutation to what Hardy, Jason, Jason Lee, Bobby, me, and a number of others have posted. Sounds to me like all you want to do is rant or stir people up, because you post nothing of substantive merit. When cornered all you do is go back to the same worn out arguments, which have been, IMHO, blown to bits. Most of the 'factual' information you post doesn't hold up to even the slightest of scrutiny.
If you're going to debate, let's debate. But please lets stick with facts
Sorry, but all you get seem to get out of the debate are contradictions, untruths, and insults.
If you ever get anything but an outright fabrication out of whoever yankee/rwgwhatever/dick is, let me know. You show me one single, valid fact that this person has any goal but to belittle, insult and harass, I for one would love to see it.
Calling out BS is not a jab. It is a fact. Facts that he himself has provided us with numerous examples and illustrations. You can't lecture people that your method of hunting is the only ethical means, and not prove that you yourself actually adhere to that method.
If it were someone like Paleo making the argument or Bill Barrick (who did hunt with longbows, and made his own arrows and broadheads_, it would have some validity. The only thing this person has demonstrated is a history of less than honest rhetoric. A person that has "contradicted" himself numerous times (which has been pointed out by many on here), and refuses to actually answer counter points with meaningful debate.....is doing nothing but spreading BS.....for lack of a better word.
You guys are nuts look you can't rationalize your way around the fact that shooting deer under feeders isn't considered sporting or I'll have to say it again " that ain't even hunting" by most outdoorsmen by attempting to say its the same as hunting around a farmers fields. I have not contradicted any of my statements ever. I don't lease land, I don't shoot deer under feeders, I don't pay to hunt on deer farms, I use a longbow during bow season, a shotgun or a muzzle loader during regular season and I still hunt and stalk on the LBJ grasslands. Don't need to provide evidence to you or anyone else to prove anything don't need a feeder to get close enough for a good kill shot either. So you know what y'all can just go fffff fill your feeders. Who do ya think you are anyway why would I waste my time trying to prove anything to a lowly bunch of bait and shooters. Why don't y'all try to prove to yourself that ya can hunt in a more respectable manner using traditional hunting methods. Believe me you'll enjoy hunting much more and get more of a sense of accoplishment in your skills as an outdoorsman - hey even spelled that last word right.
rwg15 is correct to a certain degree. I was raised in Hays County (immediately south of Austin--San Marcos is the county seat and includes the communities of Buda, Kyle, Dripping Springs and Wimberley). I continue to live and work as a Deputy Sheriff in this community. I've been so employed for 20 years. While growing up I worked and was very much involved in agriculture, ranching, farming and hunting. I've seen this community grow from a small rural, ag centered community to a bedroom sprawling suburban of Austin.
Despite the huge human population growth the deer herd has exploded as well. Recent night time surveys by TPWD show that Hays County now rivals Llano County in deer population. Much of this deer herd lives in and near cities and subdivisions. The deer don't run from the people because the people 1) Feed them and; 2) Don't hunt them. They are so exposed to humans that they've made a nuicance of themselves.
Conversely, drive through Llano County and see how many of those deer you can hand feed. Or how many will casually graze past you as you stop and exit your car. Those deer are wild but they too are fed by the hand of humans.
Deer in wild places will remain wild while their have become somewhat tamer. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are "tame" or domesticated though.
After re-reading all of the post it becomes apparent to me that rwg15; AKA: Dick Higgins IS NY Yankee. rwg15 says, "I
shoot a long bow never needed training wheels on my bow." If y'all
remember NY Yankee posted that exact same phrase before he was expelled
for not playing nice.
rwg15,
My question to you is, why do you feel so compelled to point out
everyone else's inferior (according to you) hunting prowess and
tactics? Why do you even care if someone on "EL Rancho Grande" pays
$10,000 to hunt from a box blind, behind a tall fence and over a
feeder. That's the great thing about Texas hunting. It offers
something for everyone.
Personnally, I'd never pay that or anything remotely close to that
to shoot any deer. I've hunted behind high fences on invitation to
take does and culls and have to admit that it's not my cup of tea. But
I don't feel compelled to condemn anyone who does choose that option.
I hunt a small place in central Texas. I hunt with a rifle from a
ground "blind" that i fashioned/hacked out of a pair of cedar trees.
My blind that faces down a 200 yard sendero that is the confluence of
several game trails. I normally hand toss a bucket of corn on the
ground at this confluence to stop the deer for a moment. I don't use
game cameras. I don't pay to hunt this property but have permission
from the land owner.
I hunt for the experience and while I don't kill B&C giants they
are all trophies to me. There are 1,000's of hunters just like me in
Texas. Most hunters in Texas can't afford to feed year round nor can
they do food plots.
When you make comments that "Texas hunters are this or that" type
comments it's insulting to all of us that are from Texas. If you don't
agree with the techniques of some hunters/ranchers then just say so but
quit with the insults man.
Better yet, go find your piece of property to hunt, hunt it your way
and don't worry about what some fat cat from Houston is doing 500 miles
away.
As for your argument that the deer belong to people. You are
correct. You can buy a hunting license that permits to harvest a
certain number of those deer. Now all you gotta do is gain access to a
piece of land to lawfully harvest said deer. Nobody says that you
cannot shoot a deer inside a high fence....as long as you've been
authorized to access that land from that land owner to get to the deer
that reside on his land. It's the same law in NY.
You could sway more people to your side if you'd quit insulting
everyone and being so damned obnoxious. You're spoiling for attention
and an argument. Just quit, grow up and share your hunting experiences
in a mature manner.
Dick, you've stated your opinion, I've stated mine, everyone else has stated theirs. We're all pretty adamant and we aren't going to agree. That's one thing great about human nature, we're all so different. I'm sure there is a website out there with people of the same mindset as yourself where you would have a much better time. If you find one like that, we could come visit you there. So why not just enjoy this website and all it has to offer, or just go elswhere? IF you are truly what you say you are. You want to stay, fine, but pal you're 'beating a dead horse' here.
I had hoped that we could have had an informative discussion here, but I can see that is not going to happen. However, there is one comment that you, N/Y YANKEE OR RWG15 whoever you may be, that I would like to address. You are very forward as to the "SHOOTING" of game under feeders. If you would try to take the time to read and research what most of us have stated here, you will find that for the most part, we DO NOT shoot game under a feeder. We will take a select animal coming or going from them. Feeders are only an attractant for all game. My wife had never even seen deer except along the highway (usually dead) until she met me. When I took her with me to the stand, she has really enjoyed the trips. She still does not hunt, she loves to set watch and vidio the game. Her first statement to me after she had been to the lease with me is this, quote" I had allways been told that you hunters from Texas killed everything you saw. This is not true. You only take a select animal." My wife is from up state New York, TICONDEROGA, to be exact. At least we now have a convert who knows the TRUTH.
Greetings everyone! Sorry to chime in so late in the game, but after reading this thread I couldn't help but put in my 2 cents.
In direct response to rwg15's last post...
"Why don't you try back trailing look for bedding areas and get on the ground stalking and still hunting to really "HUNT" for your select animals instead of sitting in a box stand and shooting them coming to the breakfast table you conditioned them to use."
The only difference between what you call "really" hunting and sitting in a box stand is the spatial distance from the food source. When you still hunt or back trail to a bedding area all you are doing is exploiting the deer's basic needs and habits. This is true of all hunting. If you feel you are superior to other hunters because you prefer to poke the poor deer with a sharp stick while he is sleeping in his bed or on the way to or from the "breakfast table" and said warm bed, well then that is just the way you feel and I can't change that.
This thread, to me, started with some good points to dialogue, such as privitization of wildlife, high fences, breeding programs, etc. I agree with Jason on the possible value of this thread in the beginning. I think it had some potential, but that potential was quickly lost because of the personal comments and such.
When you are familiar with a subject it should not be hard to at least see it from the opposite view. Responses that I have seen from rwg15 do not lead me to believe that he is all that familiar with this subject. This illustrates to me that our most powerful tool to keep hunting alive is education. But at the same time we must be open minded enough to hear the other side and consider any truth that may be held in it.
Understand that I am not trying to attack anyone here at all. I am just trying to get down what I feel. I don't know if I have done a very good job of that. This thread seems to have a lot of philosophical underpinnings that are always hard to communicate about. But I am glad that we are giving it a go. My cap is off to you Jason to try to keep healthy debate and dialogue alive.
If you would like to discuss/debate the ideas you mentioned, I would certainly join in. However, let's start a new thread and leave this guy altogether.
Saw PETA in there. Had to do this. They hunted over a cut Milo field and or BAIT FOOD SOURCE Goes for every animal they all have to eat so go where they are.
When the traditional deer season begins Nov. 1, most Texas hunters will go hunting. But they won't actually hunt the deer.
Instead, they will train deer to come near their blind or vehicle by baiting them, usually with shelled corn.
As sportsmen compete with ethanol production, corn prices have risen. That's not necessarily bad news. It may persuade a few more deer hunters to become purists, eschewing the use of bait in attracting deer. Some states have made it illegal to bait for deer or other game.
I'm always amused at Texas hunters who claim to have "patterned" a trophy buck's movements so they could shoot the animal. In the old days of deer hunting, B.C. (before corn), patterning meant scouting for trails, rubs, scrapes, tracks and glimpses of a target buck.
Nowadays, patterning means setting the timer on an automatic feeder to dispense bait at a certain time, then placing motion-sensitive cameras to record any animal that passes close enough to trigger the shutter or the video.
Some game cameras can be checked via the Internet so the modern hunter can "pattern" his buck from the comfort of his living room or office. That's a sad commentary on modern hunting. I don't care how big he is, I don't want to kill a trained deer with a name.
I don't want to watch video or see 15 photos of the big buck that's likely to show up at my assigned blind within minutes of the mechanical clatter caused by the spin feeder slinging corn. The thrill of a trophy deer hunt is in the unexpected appearance of a buck with antlers big enough to make my heart race.
Baiting deer is not hunting. Baiting is training deer to eat corn. Last season, there were probably 1,000 bucks shot in Texas that would qualify as trophies by almost any whitetail hunter's definition. At least 90 percent of them were shot like sheep while they ate corn
DICK is nothing but a toolbag, I actually googled Dick Higgins in Texas and all that popped up was "Dick near Higgings" So go figure!!!! Come on Dick, copy & paste some more of your BS. If you don't like the the way Texas allows us TEXANS to hunt there are plenty other states around that you can go hunt in.
Ray Sasser has been around for a long time and has been writing for the Dallas Morning news for at least 15+ years. He's hunted high fence too if memory serves correctly so why he's taking this tack I haven't a clue.
Now old Richard Gahagan/Dick Higgins is another story (pretty sure his real name is Gahagan). I guess he's changed his moniker again...first it was NYYankee, then it was rwg15, and now its Moderator - maybe he's using the last two at the same time. How sad.
I've said this on a number of other threads before, but if you ignore his posts he'll eventually go away. He's gonna try his best to stir us up, but if we don't take the bait we won't give him what he wants.
Thanks. I appreciate all the patience THF has had in this situation, so that everyone has had a chance to debate their views, regardless of how diverse. The vast majority of posts I've seen on this site have been polite, regardless of how heated the discussions got. This is a whole 'nother ball of wax here.
I apologize for my rant the other night. I just had enough of it. I am very passionate about Texas and its hunting heritage. You guys now that I am not usually that way. Once again Sorry.
I was just reading one statement from"him" about lettin the nature serve it's course. Has our "friend" ever seen the effects of NATURES effects up north when the snow is 5ft deep, deer in herds compeating for what little food that is available and the deer starve to death? A very slow death verses a well placed shot?
Email this page
