160 acres high fenced opinions

[forced-2-work]

Hahaha.

I have a deer right now I would like to put in a one acre high fence.
Only way he could survive the neighbors. Baby 14 point.

BP

He is the kind of guy always coming up with new ideas he thinks are going to just be great..... Only about 40% of the time do his ideas work, but it is fun to watch I wont lie

[doghouse]

His land and his money. It's really not any of our business. If I could afford to high fence my property I would do it.

[Atfulldraw]

This is the great thing about owning your own place.

I only have to ask one person if she wants to high fence our 140, and the fence goes up

We probably won't high fence our place unless it becomes necessary due to hunting pressure, but if we add a 100 or so acres, it's a definite possibility.

The truly great thing about a high fence is that the top half can come right back down if you decide to on down the line.

[Antlers86]

Something like this would be fun on 160 acres if taken care of properly. Yeah it's a little small but it would be a great place to get family and friends out to hunt a little bit, BBQ, see some animals you don't normally see, have a good time etc. I wouldn't go out bragging about some big buck I shot off there but the experience could be awesome for young hunters or people just getting into it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what it's for. Family, Friends and only reason for hunting is because I told him it will have to be done. His son can learn a lot from it. Majority will be sold which can turn into a decent side gig to cover feed cost.

[Traildust]

Heard that neighbor got rich in the mining business.

Mining his own business.

[RWB]

We hunt a large piece of property in leon county and I would have killed for 160 acre high fence after how little we saw this weekend. Slowest opener I can remember.

[JeffK]

If he wants to prevent inbreeding, he could always install a trap door to allow deer in but not out!

[flywise]

Seems like you would get bored seeing the same animals daily......for ever.
But I guess if a guy cares more about growing stuff than hunting stuff its ok

[TxDispatcher]

I have an opinion...and that is that it isn't any of my business

now what?

I don't think I would HF that small amount of acreage, but more power to him. I bet he doesn't give a hoot what I would do tho

[Roy]

I have a friend who owns 200ac with his cousin. It has been high-fenced, all hogs/javelina removed, and white-tailed deer only (no exotics). Unfortunately, the browse line is decimated and very little to nothing of edible vegetation left to eat except the alfalfa and protein that is being fed. And this is just by a population of about 40-50 deer.

They have breeding pens on another ranch and release select bucks to be hunted every once in a while. Not the greatest set up, but it works for hunters looking for a quick, guaranteed trophy.

[Palmetto]

Seems like you would get bored seeing the same animals daily......for ever.
But I guess if a guy cares more about growing stuff than hunting stuff its ok

Yep. I know a guy with a small place. about 400 thick acres. Every buck has a name, and he knows where each one hangs out. Chang-a-lang some corn, and they come running. He loves it.

[Deerguy]

You bet, I'll give you my opinion, and it's a strong one. On 160 acres, it is not possible to carry a breeding population of cervids with a developed-enough age structure for hunting without causing habitat damage. Absolute best case scenario, the most number of animals you'd want on that acreage without causing habitat damage would be 16 animals (5ish bucks, 6ish does, and 5ish fawns). But, very few habitats in the state can sustain 10 acres per deer for any length of time (again, without an associated vegetative species composition change). More likely, you'd want to carry somewhere around 5-8 animals.

Of course, countless properties are intentionally and artificially sustaining high densities of animals with feed, which, in my opinion (which is what you asked for) is irresponsible, selfish, and contradicts the most basic concept of land stewardship. Classic example of entitlement and greed at it's worst. Wildlife species should never be dependent on someone to feed them. Morals and values (and some would argue the responsibility of land ownership) has degraded to the point that "I'm going to do what I want because I can, regardless of the effects" mentality is not commonplace. True land stewards are now pretty rare.

Plus, there is the ethical question of hunting confined/trapped deer. Where is the fun/enjoyment in killing an animal that you know that you can find any time you want to. The argument that "well I've got 2 acres and there are deer out there that we've never seen" is a ridiculous one. If you can't find a particular deer on 160 acres in few day's time, you either shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun unsupervised, or you're one of the worst habitat managers in the state. Period.

I've never understood the pretext of 'hunting' something confined on small acreage. It'd be a lot more simple to just tie a bunch of deer to trees and let the guy walk around and pick the one he wants. The only reason to go through the 'hunting' motion is to stoke the 'hunter's' ego so that they feel a sense of accomplishment where absolutely none is warranted. This is nothing more than simple bloodlust, the desire to just kill something, in disguise so that the hunter doesn't appear to have psychopathic tendencies when describing the hunt to others.

The addition of exotics is another lengthy argument that also goes back to greed, ego, lack of land stewardship, etc. Why anyone would intentionally sustain non-native animals at the expense of native plant and wildlife species is beyond me, especially under the guise of "wildlife management".

Times have definitely changed, and not for the better.

[Burntorange Bowhunter]

IMHO that is too small.....but I would hunt it if he let me.

[TildenHunter]

You bet, I'll give you my opinion, and it's a strong one. On 160 acres, it is not possible to carry a breeding population of cervids with a developed-enough age structure for hunting without causing habitat damage. Absolute best case scenario, the most number of animals you'd want on that acreage without causing habitat damage would be 16 animals (5ish bucks, 6ish does, and 5ish fawns). But, very few habitats in the state can sustain 10 acres per deer for any length of time (again, without an associated vegetative species composition change). More likely, you'd want to carry somewhere around 5-8 animals.

Of course, countless properties are intentionally and artificially sustaining high densities of animals with feed, which, in my opinion (which is what you asked for) is irresponsible, selfish, and contradicts the most basic concept of land stewardship. Classic example of entitlement and greed at it's worst. Wildlife species should never be dependent on someone to feed them. Morals and values (and some would argue the responsibility of land ownership) has degraded to the point that "I'm going to do what I want because I can, regardless of the effects" mentality is not commonplace. True land stewards are now pretty rare.

Plus, there is the ethical question of hunting confined/trapped deer. Where is the fun/enjoyment in killing an animal that you know that you can find any time you want to. The argument that "well I've got 2 acres and there are deer out there that we've never seen" is a ridiculous one. If you can't find a particular deer on 160 acres in few day's time, you either shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun unsupervised, or you're one of the worst habitat managers in the state. Period.

I've never understood the pretext of 'hunting' something confined on small acreage. It'd be a lot more simple to just tie a bunch of deer to trees and let the guy walk around and pick the one he wants. The only reason to go through the 'hunting' motion is to stoke the 'hunter's' ego so that they feel a sense of accomplishment where absolutely none is warranted. This is nothing more than simple bloodlust, the desire to just kill something, in disguise so that the hunter doesn't appear to have psychopathic tendencies when describing the hunt to others.

The addition of exotics is another lengthy argument that also goes back to greed, ego, lack of land stewardship, etc. Why anyone would intentionally sustain non-native animals at the expense of native plant and wildlife species is beyond me, especially under the guise of "wildlife management".

Times have definitely changed, and not for the better.

Haha. Deep breath!

[BrokenJ]

You bet, I'll give you my opinion, and it's a strong one. On 160 acres, it is not possible to carry a breeding population of cervids with a developed-enough age structure for hunting without causing habitat damage. Absolute best case scenario, the most number of animals you'd want on that acreage without causing habitat damage would be 16 animals (5ish bucks, 6ish does, and 5ish fawns). But, very few habitats in the state can sustain 10 acres per deer for any length of time (again, without an associated vegetative species composition change). More likely, you'd want to carry somewhere around 5-8 animals.

Of course, countless properties are intentionally and artificially sustaining high densities of animals with feed, which, in my opinion (which is what you asked for) is irresponsible, selfish, and contradicts the most basic concept of land stewardship. Classic example of entitlement and greed at it's worst. Wildlife species should never be dependent on someone to feed them. Morals and values (and some would argue the responsibility of land ownership) has degraded to the point that "I'm going to do what I want because I can, regardless of the effects" mentality is not commonplace. True land stewards are now pretty rare.

Plus, there is the ethical question of hunting confined/trapped deer. Where is the fun/enjoyment in killing an animal that you know that you can find any time you want to. The argument that "well I've got 2 acres and there are deer out there that we've never seen" is a ridiculous one. If you can't find a particular deer on 160 acres in few day's time, you either shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun unsupervised, or you're one of the worst habitat managers in the state. Period.

I've never understood the pretext of 'hunting' something confined on small acreage. It'd be a lot more simple to just tie a bunch of deer to trees and let the guy walk around and pick the one he wants. The only reason to go through the 'hunting' motion is to stoke the 'hunter's' ego so that they feel a sense of accomplishment where absolutely none is warranted. This is nothing more than simple bloodlust, the desire to just kill something, in disguise so that the hunter doesn't appear to have psychopathic tendencies when describing the hunt to others.

The addition of exotics is another lengthy argument that also goes back to greed, ego, lack of land stewardship, etc. Why anyone would intentionally sustain non-native animals at the expense of native plant and wildlife species is beyond me, especially under the guise of "wildlife management".

Times have definitely changed, and not for the better.

How big is the property you own?