Legal question about high fencing deer

I'm not doing it nor will I ever, but I have a question about the legality. Deer are considered a public resource/property of the state, correct? How come it's legal to high fence deer and essentially steal a public resource, when it's illegal to collect rainwater, divert a stream, net a chit ton of snapper and hold them until season, etc. It seems like high fencing deer is a legal version of theft of a public resource.

really???

This is an honest question. If it's stupid, please explain why. I just got to wondering about it and couldn't think of a way in my mind as to why it wouldn't be considered theft.

well the short answer is that it IS legal, so it is NOT theft.

now then, are you talking about a man fencing in his 1000 acres and preventing wild deer from leaving his property but not doing any breeding/selling of deer

or

a man fencing 10 acres for a breeding facility

???

I know it's legal. I'm asking why it's not considered theft. I'm referring to a man fencing his 1000 acres and preventing wild deer from leaving his property.

If the deer at that point aren't considered public property, he should be able to kill them whenever he wants, as they are his private property, just like a cow or sheep.

You see what I'm saying?

no I don't see what you are saying.....

Are you saying YOU or someone else can/should be able to TELL ME what I can do with my property as far as allowing me to fence it, or what kind of fence I can have?

Deer belong to the state and no matter where they are, they are covered by state laws/regulations. So the 1000 acre owner and the public land hunter both have to go by the same laws/rules. Deer ain't cows or sheep...but you already know that....

Let me try to sum it up in a better way....

Deer belong to the state and they are a public resource.

If deer belong to the state, and someone fences them in, there is only one person in the state that has a chance at harvesting them, and that is the landowner.

If there is only one person that has access to those deer and the ability to kill them, how are they still a public resource?

If they are still a public resource, why would that not be considered theft of a public resource?



It makes total sense in my head, but I may be going crazy on a Monday.

Will deer killed inside a high fence be required to be reported on GameCheck?

only if over bait.....;)

They are a public resource not available to the public, just like deer on private unfenced land and so don't go trying to infuse logic into this statement.

I know, deer on unfenced or low fenced land have the ability to leave. So, at what point does a high fence become a pen?

I thought they had to pay a per deer fee... If not THEY SHOULD. Just as you don't own a bird if it flys on to your land and you cage it you should not be able to own the deer. Teddy Roosevelt was against private preserves and it goes against the basic tenant of conservation in America. I honestly don't know what the fair balance is between landowner and public wildlife is. I personally think that there should be a surcharge for the wildlife that is trapped inside and once all the animals are reduced to a private resource that the high fence should be regulated by a different body of Government then the conservation dept.

Also, most folks I have talked to would rather not have the local deer in their high fence to start with as they want external / better genetics.

I understand exactly what you are saying. To me that land owner or any land owner including myself for that matter shouldn't be able to pen in deer that belong to you and I or the thousand of other hunters in Alabama. BTW I always thought it was illegal to in trap deer inside a high fence area unless you purchased those animals.

I don't like them, and there's was a time I let it bother me, but I got bigger stuff to worry about in life. I don't get too worked up about it these days.

The question to answer your question is this - when have rules ever applied to folks wealthy enough to operate these places? The majority of the owners are not common folk - we can all agree on that. They are not accustomed to playing by the same set of rules anyway. And most are active politically one way or the other.

How would you assess the population for payment? Hell we can't even figure out how many deer we kill a year. Yeah you can estimate off camera surveys and the like, but I would suspect people want a hard and fast number before they shelled money out.

The breeding business is big money, but I wish it wasn't so lucrative. While technically illegal to transport deer across state lines, I think we all know it happens. Chronic wasting disease scares the crap out of me, and it's coming. The argument could possibly be made that it would get here eventually anyway, but we are speeding up the process drastically with movement of wild cervids. Being as deer hunting funds most of our state conservation efforts, a decimated herd due to CWD has far reaching implications, not to mention the economical impacts on the state.

They're going to breed whether they're in 10 acres or 1000 acres.

Probably already here. Nothing can be done about it when it is. Already in half the country, the latest being in Arkansas. Won't be long.

During construction or after it is installed all deer inside the enclosure must be removed.

It is a good point. I have also considered that argument.

depends on what you are building. If you are enclosing property outside of a breeding/buying/selling operation there is no requirement to remove any deer. How in hell are you going to remove all the deer off of 1000, hell, 100 acres???

ya'll are, as usual, mixing enclosures(op question) and deer breeders. Different stuff...different rules.

From what I was told from G&F several years ago, if you put a fence around a property to hunt privately, the native deer can stay. If the fenced property will be used for commercial hunting, the property must be purged of all native deer.

We would have had to build the fence with the exception of a 100 yard opening and make man drives on the property to run the deer off the place. Then G&F would come in and place feed stations and cameras around the property to confirm that all deer were gone.

We never built the fence but this is what we were told we would have to do. That's been about 10 years ago so I guess some of the laws may have changed.

I've hunted high fence deer. If anything, they are more skiddish than "free range". They really aren't used to hearing people, atv's, ect. At least that was the case where I hunted. My problem is this... Example. Ol Joe works all his life and finally buys 50 acres of property. About one quarter of it borders the highway, the remainder is surround by a landowner who owns a thousand or so acres. Joe puts in food plots, improves his habitat, the STATE'S deer come from his neighbor's property, some from his property, Joe kills a few, his son kills a few, living the dream. Over the summer, thousand acre man erects a game fence, covers three sides of Joe's place and the highway is on the front. Joe's deer sightings dwindle to nothing. Is the big landowner wrong or is Joe just SOL?

Joe is SOL.

Joe is SOL, you can't tell me what I can do with my property and a fence.

I guess Joe is sol but Id buy the biggest sound system you've ever seen and blast it 24/7. You can't tell me what to do with my property and my speakers

That wouldn't effect joes hunting at all.

I don't want the govt telling me what kind or how tall my fence can be. There are lots of illegal things you can do on your own property, unrolling chainlink dang sure shouldn't be one of them.
I also do not want dcnr forcing me to do environmental impact studies. Pointing your finger at "them" with their 1,000ac enclosures and demanding something to be done and you'll eventually have to jump through the same hoops to build a dog pen.

Doekiller I really hope your aren't serious about your property rights and highfence causing a wildlife excluded parcel????

That is actually the purpose of government to regulate when a system left free oppresses another. In other words if lacking restraints our CAPITALISM without some higher form of control deprives those of less means. Be it the Gulf Oil Spill or labor usage of the irish...

In my opinion all high fences should be permitted by government and wildlife easements and corridors should be required if the hypothetical scenario of the high fence causes land locking.

I don't particularly think the government should be able to regulate it either. But playing devils advocate, if you purchased some land, and spent 100k building a lake, stocking it, building docks, and managing the fish, should I be able to purchase land up stream of you and cut off your water supply? Obviously I can't, unless I get the proper authorization and likely would have to compensate the landowner being affected. For example, a plant being built up stream. Potentially an equal amount of money being "lost" in both scenarios, why is one illegal if they are both community resources?

To answer my own question, the government needs to stay out of things that Are as uncommon as a landowner fencing off another landowner. For those sporadic instances, the landowner being affected needs to attempt to rectify through the courts, or take his losses and move on. But when something (such as water diversion) is a common problem, the government needs to have laws on the books.

How do you feel about neighborhood covenants? Just curious.

A neighborhood HOA covenant and a private landowner not in an HOA are two completely different things.

The HOA is something you enter into and agree to willingly, knowing that you're going to be bent over and pounded if you leave out the garbage can, don't have your fence the right color or some other nitpicky bullshit that a Yard Nazi decreed -- AND that you agreed on.

The private landowner with only state, county and/or city laws or restrictions is to follow his desires and morals. If a problem arises with a neighbor then he should attempt to work it out peacefully if possible.


As for a fence, I agree with Doekiller.

So....you go out and buy 50 acres in the country and build a nice home, pool, ect.. Guy comes along and buys 200 acres or whatever joining you and starts farming hogs or starts a junkyard. You ok with that?
Just being devils advocate here.

Nope, not OK with it. But I'm realistic enough to know that what happens out in the county ain't like a HOA and that possibility of a hog farm or 400-home community or new road or whatever exists.

I live out where folks did just that 30+ years ago. They built their country home, nice views, quiet, no neighbors, little 2-lane roads, cows, the works. Now there are two communities with more than 3,000 homes, traffic headaches and more on the way.

Part of it sometimes.

Could be worse, just southwest of Campbellton, Fl, just below Dothan, Waste Management put a 300 or so acre stinking landfill right next to the highway. A number of people live there. Just riding by will almost make you throw up it stinks so bad. They do have a fence tho............

That happened here too. Huge landfill. Actually, there's a mountain you can see 5 miles away where there once was nothing but a hole.......I'm sure they greased enough palms so the runoff to the Tallapoosa river is overlooked.

Drive past that every time i go to the beach. Always pray for a favorable wind

Yes, I am serious. You have no right to stop me from fencing my property.

Your example is way off base. There are laws dealing with stopping the flow of water. There are no laws about putting up a fence.

Again, your example doesn't compare. Also, if I buy 50 acres in the country, I know the adjoining land owners can do what ever they want within the law to their property.

Neighborhood coveants have nothing to do with this situation. So, they are irrelevant. However, if you move into a neighborhood that has covenants, you are bound by them as you agreed to them by purchasing the property.

You are advocating basically a convienant that would not allow a land owner to do certain things on their property.

It's not off base. Both are renewable community resources. Both landowners can erase a large sum of money an adjacent landowner has spent. They are equal.

Simply because a law exists for one and not the other, doesn't change the results of either action or dictate the morality of it. a law is in place for the water, because it's a much more common occurrence. Legislators won't go to the trouble of thinking up every possible grievance, as they shouldn't.

I bet there is some case law in Alabama, applicable to the fence scenario.

Well if it's OUR deer on both the parcels of land then WE all should be able to hunt on either of them whenever we please.

However there is a case from 2010 in Louisiana where a timber company surrounded a guys property with a high fence and he sued

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1543715.html

I'm pretty sure that case involves the Busbice clan from Wildgame Innovations. "Six C" is their company I believe.

I think it is, and it appears they lined some pockets on that appellate court. At least from their "interpretation" of the codes, vs my understanding.

It is off base. We are not talking about morality. We are talking about legal. No one said it was moral. Moral has nothing to do with it. People acted like they have a legal right to stop someone from fencing their property because they don't like it.

And you example is funny anyway. The only way you have that lake to spend all you money on is because you damned up the water source. So, no you want to complain about someone doing to you, what you have done to someone else further down the waterway.

How is my example funny? A damned up water source is not what I was talking about. That does not rob people down stream necessarily. Diverting the water to a different route does. Cooling machinery with that water does. Things of that nature. And that is why it's all heavily regulated by the Corp.

As for the other part, I was speaking to the morality and effect, because it seemed like you were indicating that laws on the books were the litmus test. If not, I was wrong.

Is there not a code in Alabama about causing damages or depreciation to others properties, similar to the Louisiana code above? Is there not case law that could be referenced in a suit? I don't think it should be law that you can't build a fence. That is what the court system is for, to interpret the gray areas.

How big does the fence have to be for you to have a problem with it? Can I fence in a 1-5ac garden?
What if my row crop property is a natural funnel, pinched between 2 rivers. Would you have a problem with me putting a 3 strand hot wire around it to prevent crop damage? Do i not have a right to fence deer out of my property?

I don't like tall fences either, but I certainly don't want more regulations.

It most certainly can. This is exactly what Alabama, Georgia and Florida have been arguing about in federal courts for decades in regard to the Chattahoochee. This is argued in Western states as well.

we answered the legal question, some of ya'll are just whining now.....