Animal Ownership?

[FPH]

If you are establishing a game (ELK) ranch, have built  containment fences, have bought breeding stock ( no natural Elk present), feed them, water them and pay Vet bills in some cases......are those Elk like cattle and belong to the ranch owner?  Conversely, if you only encourage game to inhabit your property with food and water, do they belong to the State?

[FPH]

How about the guys in E. TX that put a 10'-12 ' high deer fence up to keep the natural occurring deer on their ranch ( they don't allow natural movement)?

[Ranger99]

if you have a hf ranch and stock it
with elk in texas, they are yours because
elk are an exotic in texas. as far as i know,
if you have whitetail deer on your hf
ranch here, they belong to the state.
rules on hf vary i think.
on the one closest to me, they had
to work with a state biologist to kill off
all the whitetail because it is to be an
exotic ranch. most of the hf's are management
ranches trying to manage for maximum antler size.
it's a big source of controversy here right now.
lot of 'em going up.
east texas doesn't have a hammerlock on hf.
it's all over.

[FPH]

hf.....High fence?

[Ranger99]

yes- high fence.


wanna start an argument around hunters here,
just pick either side and mention it.


or mention the antler restrictions


it's about like the ar vs. not deal. or worse. . . .

[FPH]

I know A&M was doing genetic studies on antler grow back in  the 70's.  It was controversial then.

[Lloyd Smale]

In michigan theyd be yours. Deer too in high fense are your property but they must be deer you bought or bread. You cannot fence in wild animals.

[geezerbiker]

In all rights they be yours but in crazy Oregon, the state doesn't care and says they own them.  That's what Oregon did to close all exotic game ranches in the state.  It really sucks but there's not much we can do about it.

Tony

[mannyrock]

 
    Wild animals that you encourage to come upon and stay upon your land by water and habitate definitely belong to the State, not you.
 
    This was one of the very first things we learned in Property Law in law school.   Famous cases in England, from the 17th Century, discussing in incredible detail, the difference between the ownership rights in "ferus domesticae" (domesticated animals) and "ferus naturae" (wild animals).  Wild animals belong to the State and the only thing you own is the underlying land, and the right to say who can and cannot come upon it to hunt.    This was a very big deal in England, because of fox hunting and pheasant hunting. 
 
   As far as high fence operations, I was stunned to see that 30 minutes west of Myrtle Beach, SC, near Dillon, SC, there are several huge operations, fronting right  on the highways, with signs up advertising hunting for trophy whitetails. 
 
   Whether your are allowed to put up such fences, etc., is strictly a matter of state and local law.
 
  Personally, I would rather take a yearling forkhorn buck on my own in the deep woods than kill any fenced "trophy" whitetail.
 
   Franky, the Texas "hunting" that I see on cable disgusts me.   
 
Mannyrock
 
 

[Land_Owner]

  Personally, I would rather take a yearling forkhorn buck on my own in the deep woods than kill any fenced "trophy" whitetail.

+1
LO

[Empty Quiver]

Yes and yes.


You would be well advised to research your local laws concerning CWD as well as the general subject of pen raising those elk. At the very least you should be quarantining those animals before releasing them from a small pen, regardless of what the law reads.


Secondly I would find out what it takes to prove you have not inadvertently penned up any wild stock.  A simple one acre deal would be pretty easy but if you are looking at a densely wooded 25 acre project, that is another thing entirely.


A lawyer looking into this might be well advised. If you somehow manage to release CWD into your locality God help you as the DNR will declare jihad on you and all you have touched in your life.

[dukkillr]

In this part of the country fenced in animals are livestock, and yours.  That's why killing them isn't hunting.  It's not hunting if I drive out to my south 40 and shoot a steer.  How challenging it is, or how wary my steer is, or how big the pasture is... none of it makes any difference.  It's a livestock animal.  If you want to shoot it and pretend you're hunting that's fine, but you're not, and the law agrees.
 
BTW, can you imagine the TV sponsorships the kill man at a slaughter house could get if the pro-killing-fenced-in-animals-crowd was right?  Dude kills more animals in a day than Chuck Adams does in a decade.

[FPH]

Well my buddy let one Elk cull bull be taken this year.....went 403 and dressed to 1000 lbs.

[ironglow]

Count me with the natural hunters..

[FPH]

Count me with the natural hunters..

Oh, it's not caged......8,700 acres of hunting.  I hate caged myself.

[D Fischer]

I wonder what would happen if the state's decided that even wild animals on private land were owned by the land owner and no licence or tag was needed to hunt them. Then the land owner would have another source of income and it would be in his best interest to manage the game well. Then even if you couldn't go on the private land, the public land would receive the benefit of it. I think if big land owners had that option it might lead to opening more land. Those that want to continue allowing trespass through state program's, more power to you. The large ranch's are going to charge enough probably that the cost itself will restrict use. As the cost goes up, I would think that the land owner would need better class animals to attract the big money. let the big money have it, they have it anyway! But also quit all form's of predator control and and crop damage programs. I think most of our rancher's can better mind the affairs of game on their land, it would be in their interest to do so.

[FPH]

I wonder what would happen if the state's decided that even wild animals on private land were owned by the land owner and no licence or tag was needed to hunt them. Then the land owner would have another source of income and it would be in his best interest to manage the game well. Then even if you couldn't go on the private land, the public land would receive the benefit of it. I think if big land owners had that option it might lead to opening more land. Those that want to continue allowing trespass through state program's, more power to you. The large ranch's are going to charge enough probably that the cost itself will restrict use. As the cost goes up, I would think that the land owner would need better class animals to attract the big money. let the big money have it, they have it anyway! But also quit all form's of predator control and and crop damage programs. I think most of our rancher's can better mind the affairs of game on their land, it would be in their interest to do so.

Well, here in NM and TX you can get land owner permits you can sell.  The number of permits in NM is dependent on the amount of land you have.