The bottom line is that the state of Texas has been hippocritical on this issue from the time the first "game fence" was erected. The game animals of this state are supposed to belong to the people of the state (the term people used collectively, meaning ALL the people), but fences that restrict their free movement make them essentially belong to landowners. The state still claims that native game animals belong to the public, yet allows landowners to erect fences that restrict their free movement. You just can't have it both ways. In word the state claims game animals are public, but in action and deed they have allowed them to be privatized.
Whether this is a good or bad thing is purely in the eyes of the beholder. Watching a game fence go up is sure to stir passions one way or another. To the hunter on the free range side, who can't afford to own enough land to "manage" the deer population, a high fence can mean restricted deer traffic and reduced opportunity to hunt. To the landowner who erects the high fence, it represents the ability to carefully manage the deer population without crippling interference from others who do not share the same goals of management, and are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to attain a high quality population.
It is my personal opinion that all high fences should be outlawed. The game animals should in fact belong to the public, and no landowner, however large or influential, should be allowed to confine these naturally free-ranging animals. There is no other fair way to do it. If game fences are allowed, then the animals become essentially personal property and may no longer be accessed by the public.
I also think that harvest should be regulated by acreage. Permits by sex should be issued to landowners or lessees based on population density. No more than the quota of animals allowed by permit should be harvested per tract of land. This would eliminate much of the need for high fences, because large numbers of animals could not be harvested on smaller acreages ajoining larger tracts on which deer are managed intensely. Five hunters could not kill five deer on a 50 acre tract, for example, if the tract had a quota of only one deer. Permits on land of less acreage than that required to sustain one deer harvested annually would have to receive permits on a rotating basis, one permit every two or three years, as the case may be. This would reduce overhunting of areas divided into smaller tracts.
