Theft or not?

[Wild Bill Bucks]

This year I bumped into a guy, that said he worked on the new game ranch in our area, building high fencing, around the ranch.

He said year before last that the ranch had put in some enormous food plots, and had dug a 30 acre lake in the middle of them. All of this centered in the middle of the 3800 acre property.

He said they called this "Centralizing the game".

I have been wondering why no one in the McGee Creek area has been seeing any deer this year, and I'm pretty sure that this practice has caged most of the deer in the area.

He said almost every day as they would go to work, he would see from 50 to 100 deer in the plot area or around the small lake.

I realize that this is probably the way this is done everywhere, but my question is, how does this differ from legalized theft of game animals, since the state uses our tax dollars to fund programs, for the hunter.

Seems like the game farm gets free deer, while the hunter takes the hit in the area.

How say you guys.

[Wyoredman]

This is the one of the reasons (there are several others) that some States have it written in their constitutions that the People of the State own the wildlife. Take Wyoming for instance, game ranching is 100% illegal. Ranchers and farmers are not allowed to build high fence without building escape areas for game and other wildlife. They can't "fence them in" because the State owns them.

It is also illegal to ranch wildlife purchased from out of state game farms. The reasoning is that penned animals may contract disease and spread it to the wild population.

I, personally, think Wyoming has it right. I have hunted game farms both here in the US and also abroad. While still a challenge, I like the fact that there are still wild places to hunt. Even if I can't get access to that huge private ranch, there is still the chance that the animals living there may jump the small fence the day I am hunting the bordering BLM!

As for disease, our wildlife is having a hard enough time coping with the natural spread and progression of some pretty bad bugs, I am glad they don't need to fight off the super bug from the game farm deer imported from Timbucktoo!

[NoSecondBest]

If they own the property, it's their right to put a fence around it. I doubt that their thought was stealing deer, it was probably keeping the gains of their improvements (more deer) from wandering off or having non members wander on. If the deer get "trapped" on the property due to the fence being erected, it's not the owners fault. What's he/they supposed to do when they put a fence up? Do you think they should figure out how to chase the deer off? I don't think they did anything wrong. Just the way it is.

[madmo44mag]

I would have no issue if the fence was built them the improvements put in but to put in the improvements first and drawing the game in to be fenced; I have a real problem with that.
In a sense the latter IMHO is theft of public property- live game.

Just my 2 cents.

[Brian Pfleuger]

What they've done is either legal or illegal. If illegal, the proper channels should be followed.

If legal, how is it "theft" any more than it's "theft" when a hunters shoots a deer that is "owned" by the state? It isn't "theft" when a hunter does it because it's legal.

If it's legal, it isn't "theft" when a fence does it any more than it is when a hunter does it.

[treg]

Check with your local game officer.

Here, they made one golf course remove a high fence surrounding their property and another modify theirs to allow movement of game.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

That's a commercial business venture. If the game farm owner stocked his own property originally. I than think he then is entitled to fence it up to the moon if wanting. As read since he's attempting to hold wild normally free ranging animals on his property for the purpose of commercial interests. I see that as not being legal to do. Best thing for those folks affected is to call the States Attorney Office to see if that ranch owner is within his rights to promote such a venture to begin with. Maybe talk to those PETA folks. And get them a-walking around too wouldn't hurt. Try to get the ones up in MN to come down there. Their the best at driving their point home._:D

[Brian Pfleuger]

Maybe talk to those PETA folks. And get them a-walking around too wouldn't hurt.

:eek:Talk about sleeping with the enemy! No way, no how, would I get PETA involved in anything, ever, under any circumstances, ever, never, period.

[Ruger480]

I say theft. I'd be calling every law maker and CO whose phone number I could get.
There is no difference (IMO) in putting out bait/attractants and catching the deer in a trap. Having done so, the fence has essentially harvested all those deer. On top of that they intend to make money off of previously owned state property.

[cerberus65]

Unless PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals no way in heck would I involve them in anything!

If it were me I'd call the local DNR office and ask what the law says.

It may or may not be legal. It definitely isn't ethical. If it happens to be legal you might still be able to stir up enough folks to write the editor, call the TV station, etc. to "convince" them of the error of their ways.

[doofus47]

I think he was kidding about the PETA.

I would give DNR a jingle. It might be his property, but if he has set up bait and then locked down the local wildlife, then it's maybe borderline.

[.284]

I heard a similar story years ago here in Michigan. There was a high fence hunting area near some state land that a few of us used to hunt. One of the guys in my party had a cottage on a small chunk of property near both the state land and the high fence. Well as the story was told to me, the fence people (we'll call them "the fence people") had to go in a do a satisfactory job (as prescribed by the DNR) of running the wildlife out before sealing the fence off. I think it was pretty involved.....horses, dogs and a boat load of people. After which, they ("the fence people") could import their own game within the confines of said fence. The reason was exactly as many have argued here, the wildlife was a state resource and did not belong to the land owners......"the fence people".

Again, it was a long time and many beers ago but, that's the jist of the story. Maybe it's true and maybe my buddy was spinning a yarn. Sounds plausible though.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

doofus47: Your spot on with PETA. Just so long as their gone from this State is all that matters. What better place for em to migrate too than Oklahoma in the winter time. A cause such as this Is right up their alley. Yesiree. I'm sure there are 2-or 3 bus loads willing to travel. Just a little invite is all that's required.

[reynolds357]

I think its a two way street. Deer are fenced in their farm, but unless they are using very specialized gates, the deer are also trapped out as well. In a couple years, it will all balance out.

[Dc777]

Personally I believe in freedom and a mans right to do whatever he wants with his property. If there aren't any deer around you, then lease some land where there are deer. I'm not being ugly, but the man is free to do what he wants with his land.

[Art Eatman]

Shrug. If the habitat outside the fence is suitable for deer, deer will be there. If somehow the local area deer had begun hanging out around the pond and food plot, deer from farther away will say, "Hey, lookie what we found! Yummies, and nobody home!"

I doubt that Oklahoma law speaks to how high a fence might be.

What a guy does on his own land is not my business. Since it's in Oklahoma, the laws of Wyoming or Texas are irrelevant.

[Cowboy_mo]

In addition I doubt that any game farm would go to the trouble and expense stated without researching OK law first.

I do wish more states had laws similar to Wyoming's. Game farming is allowed in MO and as a result we have had CWD problem in the areas of the state where said game farms have been developed.

[Art Eatman]

High fence around a good number of thousands of acres is no big deal, to me. But that's not necessarily "game farming" as done by some. From what I read, the odds of CWD are higher than I want to take a chance on.

What most folks don't realize about the high-fence deals is the fence is to keep other deer from coming in to all the improved pasture and water and overloading the habitat.

[Ruger480]

What most folks don't realize about the high-fence deals is the fence is to keep other deer from coming in to all the improved pasture and water and overloading the habitat

By that token one could make the argument that prisons are erected to keep other people from free meals, cable TV and exercise equipment.

I am not trying to be contentious, just observing different view points. :)

[ChasingWhitetail91]

Sounds like funny buisness to me. I'm no fan of PETA but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Consider this. The wealthy Fence their land. The common Post their land. How is one different than the other. Both are meant to stop intruders. The only problem as I see it would be if the large land owner because of having such a vast amount of land leaves gates here and there around the perimeter of his property purposely open to attract game movement from public land to his. But than again how is that any different than another who build food plots or grows grain for an attractant on open land that isn't fenced but Posted. As read the fellow in Oklahoma is using his land in a more productive way by hosting those who prefer to do their hunting on a game ranch and are quite willing to pay for all the owners billed services and conveniences offered. Those folks who have found themselves negatively caught up in the large landowners plans and/or not being allowed to hunt surrounding Posted land will just have to improve their methods in attracting deer on public lands. Or consider someplace else to hunt. Think MN. We like having out-state hunters come to our State._:D

[Art Eatman]

Ruger480, consider the purpose of a high-fence hunting ranch. The idea is to manage the herd so that high-quality trophies are somewhere near the norm, not rarities. To do this, it is imperative that the habitat not exceed its carrying capacity.

When you improve a habitat area, you create a situation where, "If you build it, they will come." Without the fence, you're soon back to an overloaded condition.

[Panfisher]

Theft or not. To me it would strictly be determined by the laws of the state. If its legal then in no way is it theft, its good business practice. If I was doing it and it was legal I would build the things that attract the base herd of deer then surround in with the fence. Then maybe import some better genetics and begin to manage the herd for whatever purposes I intended. Obviously it is to be managed for trophy animals so they can sell hunts. I can also see the state might say "hey those deer you trapped belong to the state, you owe us a fee of $??, still probably cheaper than buying the entire stock to start with, might take a little longer to build your genetics up starting from a wild base type, but might be cheaper than buying better stock to start with. Now for my personal opinion I don't like that someone can fence in property of the state (wildlife) and use it for their own benefit such as selling hunts, but opinion and state laws are obviously not the same thing.

[Wyoredman]

What a guy does on his own land is not my business. Since it's in Oklahoma, the laws of Wyoming or Texas are irrelevant.

Very True!

[Ruger480]

The idea is to manage the herd so that high-quality trophies are somewhere near the norm, not rarities. To do this, it is imperative that the habitat not exceed its carrying capacity.


This is true yet not the crux of my issue.

The problem as I see it, is that the organization in question has lured in to a certain location, property belonging to the state/the people.
And after having done so, essentially removed the possibility of harvest by the public, unless certain fees are paid.
That money was previously paid to the state via tags and licenses. Habitat improvement and similarly herd quality came from the Pittman-Robertson Act.
Regardless of the reasoning used to justify these actions, its still qualifies as stealing in my book.

I have no issue with people wishing to shoot domestic cattle, so long as the cattle are legitimately purchased.

Also, if one were to take something rare and desirable because of its rarity and make it the norm, the qualities that made it desirable are gone. They have become common place and the value is diminished. Semantics, I know. But who cares if one shoots a 150 class whitetail if 160 is the average?

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by Art Eatman:

Ruger480, consider the purpose of a high-fence hunting ranch. The idea is to manage the herd so that high-quality trophies are somewhere near the norm, not rarities. To do this, it is imperative that the habitat not exceed its carrying capacity.

When you improve a habitat area, you create a situation where, "If you build it, they will come." Without the fence, you're soon back to an overloaded condition.

Most high-fenced hunting ranches already exceed the carrying capacity of the natural habitat. Many ranches are in areas that once didn't have deer or had very few deer because there was little or no natural food sources. This is why they use feeders and plant food plots to supplement the diets of the animals that live there in numbers far exceeding what would occur naturally. Making Trophy bucks the norm and not a rarity means they need to fence the place to keep the bucks in. In a natural setting there would never be high numbers of dominate bucks in one area. Big bucks do not naturally tolerate each other. They would spread themselves out and drive their competition away, regardless of how large the area is. Sooner or later some large bucks would leave the property.....if there was not a fence there.

[Mobuck]

In my state, the local game must be removed prior to closing the fence. None of the "state's" deer can remain inside.

[reynolds357]

If they are the "State's deer" I think I should send the "State" a bill for my crops their deer destroy every year.

[Art Eatman]

buck, some might operate that way. But from what I read in the Texas Wildlife Associates magazine when there is discussion of game ranches in Texas, that "some" is likely a quite-small percentage.

It's common to have one or more wildlife biologists regularly observing the system management (cooperative funding among several ranches) and advising on "how to" for best production. "Cross-pollination" with TP&WD wildlife biologists, as well.

FWIW, for any Texas hunters here, TWA is worth the $35/yr for an Associate Member's fee. I was a full member when they first got going in the 1980s, and have dropped back to Associate since they found success. A good bit of clout with the legislature for wildlife and ranching issues. www.texas-wildlife.org

[Cowboy_mo]

Some state's have laws where they are responsible for the crop damage done by the wildlife.

Also I understand the insurance laws in some state's are responsible for the auto damage when you hit a deer with your vehicle.

[Cowboy_mo]

MISSOURI CODE OF STATE REGULATIONS

TITLE 3 - DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

DIVISION 10 - CONSERVATION COMMISSION

CHAPTER 9 - WILDLIFE CODE: CONFINED WILDLIFE: PRIVILEGES, PERMITS, STANDARDS

The Missouri Administrative Code titles are current through June 30, 2007.

3 CSR 10-9.565 Licensed Hunting Preserve: Privileges

(B) Big Game Hunting Preserve.

1. A big game hunting preserve for ungulates shall be a fenced single body of land, not dissected by public roads, and not less than three hundred twenty (320) acres and no more than three thousand two hundred (3,200) acres in size. The hunting preserve shall not be cross-fenced into portions of less than three hundred twenty (320) acres. The hunting preserve shall be fenced so as to enclose and contain all released game and exclude all hoofed wildlife of the state from becoming a part of the enterprise and posted with signs specified by the department. Fence height shall meet standards specified in 3 CSR 10- 9.220. Fencing for hogs shall be constructed of twelve (12) gauge woven wire, at least five feet (5') high, and topped with one (1) strand of electrified wire. An additional two feet (2') of such fencing shall be buried and angled underground toward the enclosure interior. A fence of equivalent or greater strength and design to prevent the escape of hogs may be substituted with written application and approval by an agent of the department.

Now this has nothing to do with OK but I'm willing to bet a little googling would provide similar info for OK and every other state.

One note in regard to the original post. The regs say "fences shall EXCLUDE all the state's wildlife" but it doesn't say anything about running them off before the fence is erected.

[Ruger480]

Exclude: to expel or bar especially from a place or position previously occupied.

[Todd1700]

I have no issue with people wishing to shoot domestic cattle, so long as the cattle are legitimately purchased.

I agree with this. If the wild deer on your land were yours then you would be able to shoot as many of them whenever and however you wanted. The fact that you are limited by state game laws in the harvest of these animals is evidence they are not your private property but are in fact considered public property. That being the case why should you be allowed to imprison them on your property? A river runs through my families property here in Alabama but we don't have a right to build a dam across it so only we get to use it.

Also, if one were to take something rare and desirable because of its rarity and make it the norm, the qualities that made it desirable are gone.

This is another topic but I agree. This is the reason I have no desire to shoot any of these high fence bucks. Why isn't a spike buck considered a trophy? I'll tell you why. Cause they are a dime a dozen and easy to kill. If you create a situation where 150 class bucks are a dime a dozen and just as easy to kill then you have removed everything that made that animal a rare trophy. The horns themselves have no real tangible value. Their worth is tied entirely to the value we hunters place on them due to the rarity they represent under normal circumstances.

[Wyoredman]

If they are the "State's deer" I think I should send the "State" a bill for my crops their deer destroy every year.

Many State game agencies DO pay damage claims for crops eaten and/or ruined by wildlife. Check with you Fish and Game department.

Wyoming budgets nearly $500K per year or just this problem.

[Art Eatman]

One thing we should consider in this is the viewpoint of the clientele of these operations.

Probably less interest in spending many days outdoors or in working up "THE" load for a rifle. Probably less time available to go hunting--but the desire does exist. My own experience with a fair number of high-income people is that I've had a helluva lot more free time than they'll ever have.

So some city guy from NYC or Miami decides that he wants to do the Bambi deal, has maybe four or five days including travel? For him, it's pretty neat. Everybody's gotta start somewhere.`

If the customer is happy with the deal, and the rancher is enjoying doing the deal, I don't see how I'm hurt. And, given the amount of deer country in Texas, a percent or two of the total area is insignificant.

[.284]

Where I feel your point is a valid one, I believe you're drifting away from the intent of the original post. I have zero problems with managed hunting ranches, fenced or not. Truth be told, going on a guided, managed, trophy, or whatever you want to say "hunt" is on my bucket list.

The concern or question made in the original post is how the ranch got the party started. Again as some have said, if the state has laws against the way the ranch came to be then they broke the law period. If not, it's just a question of your ethics on whether or not it was right or wrong.

[Wild Bill Bucks]

I don't really have a dog in the fight, because I don't use the cabin to hunt from, as I have a lease a little closer to McAlester.

I only posted, because I felt it was a bit funny that we as hunters have to purchase a tag in order to hunt our deer,even on our own property, and the tag money is used to promote wildlife hunting in our state.

I really thought it was odd that someone with big dollars could come in to our state, sucker in the deer, and then assume ownership of the game to be hunted at a profit.

I wonder what would happen to me, if I suckered the game ranger onto my property, then built a fence around his truck, and wanted to assume ownership of the truck. After all, my taxes went to pay for the truck just like my hunting tags go to pay his salary.:D

I know this has really upset a lot of people in the area, because it is a very poor part of the state, and several of these people actually use hunting season to stock their freezers for the year.

I am fortunate enough, not to have to hunt for my meat, but I can certainly see their point, as I fear, just as they do, that once the game is trapped, there will be a lot of deer that get destroyed inside the ranch, to weed out undesirable game that is not wanted, and those will be buried, with no one getting to benefit from the meat.

[Art Eatman]

Wild Bill, am I wrong in assuming that anybody who hunts inside that fence must buy a hunting license? Owner or customer, "Ya gotta have a license!" in most states. All states, really, SFAIK.

If there is catering to non-resident hunters, the state's game department sees even greater income.

I really don't see how any "stealing" is going on.

In low-fence country: If owner A does food plots and adjacent owner B does not, is A stealing deer from B? Seems like silly nit-picking, to me.

[Ruger480]

I wonder what would happen to me, if I suckered the game ranger onto my property, then built a fence around his truck, and wanted to assume ownership of the truck.

That's funny, I was going to use the same argument. I think you may have to put new tires on it though, that way you can make the claim your improving the quality. Seems to make the whole concept legitimate.

Based on the logic used to acquire the deer in this scenario, I'd say it looks like you have a new truck in your future!! :D

[Cowboy_mo]

Exclude: to expel or bar especially from a place or position previously occupied.

technically correct but you forgot to mention how far down the dictionary you had to go to find it.
ex·clude (k-skld)
tr.v. ex·clud·ed, ex·clud·ing, ex·cludes
1. To prevent from entering; keep out; bar: a jar sealed to exclude outside air; an immigration policy that excludes undesirables.
2. To prevent from being included, considered, or accepted; reject: The court excluded the improperly obtained evidence.
3. To put out; expel.

Trust me, legislators and regulators don't go that far down for the word they chose.

[Ruger480]

That was definition number 2 in the Mirriam Websters dictionary

This was the first entry

1 a : to prevent or restrict the entrance of

b : to bar from participation, consideration, or inclusion

Its not for the legislators any more, now its for the lawyers. And last time I checked, they are pretty particular when it comes to wording and definitions. Regardless of how far down the page a definition occurs

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

I know MNs DNR {did} pay for grey wolf predation on farm animals when wolves were listed as an Endangered Species. As far as something wild eating crops or grain. I think MN farmer's have to absorb that one usually. If other than deer damage or a black bears doing's (grain field damage) the DNR will make and effort at trying to live trap the bear/s.

[Art Eatman]

The issue is that of "theft", and about all I can see is that only Oklahoma law would apply--and my bet is that the OP's described actions are legal.