# Start moving deer stands and feeders



## BIGSTICK (Jun 11, 2004)

Texas Legislator Online

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-...&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00185&VERSION=1&TYPE=B

"A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the use and placement of certain hunting blinds and 
wildlife feeders.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 
SECTION 1. Subchapter A, Chapter 62, Parks and Wildlife 
Code, is amended by adding Section 62.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 62.002. CERTAIN PLACEMENT AND USE OF BLINDS AND 
FEEDERS PROHIBITED. (a) In this section:
(1) "Hunting blind" means a temporary or permanent 
structure designed to wholly or partly conceal a person from view 
while the person hunts.
(2) "Wildlife feeder" means an automatic or manual 
mechanical device designed to provide food to native or exotic 
wildlife.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), no person may: 
(1) place or build a hunting blind or wildlife feeder 
less than 150 yards from a fence that separates property owned by 
one person from property owned by another person; or
(2) hunt from or use a hunting blind or wildlife feeder 
that is less than 150 yards from a fence that separates property 
owned by one person from property owned by another person.
(c) This section does not apply to: 
(1) a landowner who possesses a written agreement with 
an adjoining landowner that allows the placement of a hunting blind 
or wildlife feeder less than 150 yards from a common fence or 
boundary shared by the landowners; or
(2) a person hunting from or using a hunting blind or 
wildlife feeder at a location that is allowed under a written 
agreement between adjoining landowners.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005."


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

Is this just a BILL or has it been enacted into a LAW?


----------



## Bucksnort (Jun 29, 2004)

gets my support


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 28, 2004)

So tripods & tree stands don't count becuase you aren't concealed.....right?


----------



## yamahammer (Aug 7, 2004)

Palmetto, read line (1) of the bill. "wholly or partially conceal a person from view while the person hunts." If you are elevated off of the ground, you are out of the normal line of sight of a deer, therefore you are partially concealed. Thus one of the reasons for tree stands and tripods. Thats the way I see it, since deer aren't naturally birdwatchers........LOL


----------



## TXPalerider (May 21, 2004)

I vote yea!!


----------



## TPD (Jun 11, 2004)

*absolutely*

We had a place in Laredo for five years that had 100 acre tracts down a portion of one side of it. They each had a tower stand sitting directly on the fence. We tried to drive it every day we were there to let them know we were watching. We routinely found their corn on the ground on our side of the fence. Fortunately, no major confrontations ever came from it.

My current lease has it in the contract that no stands or feeders can be erected within 100 yards of a property boundary.


----------



## Argo (May 21, 2004)

I would say go for it. You can still feed and sit in the brush if you want. All my blinds are way beyond 150 yards from the fence cause I dont want anyone stealing my stuff.


----------



## Bucksnort (Jun 29, 2004)

Our current lease contract is no stand closer than 200 yards to the fence line.


----------



## Fish-a-mon (May 21, 2004)

I agree that stands and feeders shouldn't be a fence lines, but the state cant tell a land owner where he can or can't thing on their property. It will never stand up.


----------



## TPD (Jun 11, 2004)

*stands and feeders*

It doesn't say where he can hunt. Only where he can erect something. Deed restrictions commonly do the same thing.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 28, 2004)

This is B.S. If your neighbors are crooks & poachers, do you really think this law will stop them? They are gonna get away with everything they can, whenever they can.


----------



## Sean Hoffmann (May 24, 2004)

*Yep.*

Each game warden will be equipped with the best range finder money can buy to enforce this potential law.


----------



## TXPalerider (May 21, 2004)

I wish this was reasonable, because I am unnecessarily encroached upon every year by as*hole neighbors that lease a bigger ranch than I hunt.

Having said that, if I were a landowner I'm sure I wouldn't like it. But, there is really no difference in this and a deed restriction. Or what about when a landowner has his land annexed by a city? He is then encumbered by numerous restrictions that weren't there when he bought the land. I guess the way I feel is, I don't necessarily agree with this. But, on a personal level, it would currently benefit me.


----------



## Sea-Slug (May 28, 2004)

*Shape*

Many tracts are oddly shaped. For instance, I have one pasture that is only 400 yards wide and a mile long. The other is only 100 acres that is also oddly shaped. Large parts of these both are coastal. This would make most of my productive hunting spots illegal. I might squeeze 1 stand on each place. For a landowner with a really small place, like with 20 or 30 acres or 40 even, depending how its layed out and how much is coastal or water or horse barn and outbuildings, etc., it might make his property useless for hunting, thus greatly reducing the value of his investment. I don't like it at all. This would make most tracts that are 40 acres or less or at least many of these illegal to set a stand or feeder on. What if the center of the place is open pasture? I can see why the wealthy landowners with large tracts support this. They can then gobble up thier nieghbors places.


----------



## Sean Hoffmann (May 24, 2004)

Sea Slug, the blatant irony of this whole issue, IMO, is that the wealthy landowners with large tracks should logically be against being told what they can/cannot do on their own property. If I were a property owner, large or small, I'd be resentful that this proposed bill has seen the light of day, even if I could realize short term benefit from its passage. I would be thinking in the back of my mind, "What are they going legislate that effects me as a property owner next? Will they say that my game proof fence is a foot to high? Will they tell me that I have to plant a certain crop during a certain time of year, or perhaps dictate what I cannot plant?" Sheesh, all these crazy ideas, and I'm not a paranoid person.

Certainly Mr. Bigranch holds personal freedoms and the theory that fewer personal land use mandates are better much higher than the threat of someone shooting one of "his" deer that has crawled under the barbed wire property line to go eat corn at the neighbor's feeder 75 yards down the game trail.


----------



## Channelcat (May 22, 2004)

*It's a bad proposal....*

It's a anti-hunting proposal. Just like banning bowhunting on less than ten acres in some hill country areas. 
It's not about big ranches, it's about small parcels of land and the city folks moving out to the country and not wanting the deer hunted. You know, the deer that are for watching. 
This is the first step to the end of anything more than package hunting in Texas. When the little guy can't hunt, he won't buy a license. when license sales go down, the price goes up, more decline in sales, more rise in prices. 
I hunt 115 acres in Gonzales County, and this bill will allow only one stand/blind on the 115 acres. When I can't hunt it with my grandson, I'll quit hunting it and won't buy a license.



Bucksnort said:


> gets my support


----------



## Sharkhunter (May 22, 2004)

This is an anti hunting bill clear and simple.Watch out for the wolf in sheeps clothes. This would mean anybody with a small piece of land can't hunt on it. Just my thoughts.


----------



## CHunter (May 25, 2004)

I'm totally against this also. I'd like to hear more of the reasoning behind this bill.


----------



## Channelcat (May 22, 2004)

*Waiting an answer*

Here is the content of the message sent to Rep. S. Campbell

Sir: Before I mount a campaign opposing your HB-185, I would like to request you to justify this attack on land owner and hunters rights. 
Thank You



CHunter said:


> I'm totally against this also. I'd like to hear more of the reasoning behind this bill.


----------



## Bucksnort (Jun 29, 2004)

The reason I like this bill is because it WOULD benifit me. As I posted on an earlier post my neighbors owned 341 acres. He bordered 2.5 miles of our property line. He had 6 stands right on the fence...I mean a foot from the fence. He and his hillbilly buddies shot 22 deer off of their property last season. We asked him very nicely if he would move his stands off the property line. He told us "Get Fkd, that he was the landowner and we just leased our property and he would do what he wanted too" in those exact words. I know they were shooting deer on our side of the fence and I know that they shot deer that jumped onto our side of the fence and they never bothered to retrieve them. I feel that because of their unethical behavior it has dramatically effected our deer population and will take a couple of years to recover. Anyway, he sold the property and the new owner has cut some senderos and has only put up three stands. I think I have personally heard 4 shots come from the property. The new guy is ethical. We don't need a law for him......but the previous jerk....he needs to see jail time and if this bill is made into law I will call the game warden everytime I see a violation. PERIOD!!!!


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

Just a tidbit about the guy who has proposed this bill: From http://www.chompy.net/blogs/sarah/archives/002693.html

*October 20, 2004*

*Drunk and Disorderly in House District 72*

Lordy, lordy! If the good ol' boys in the GOP don't start behaving themselves, Democrats may just take over Texas after all. Byron has a new post on the Texas Tuesdays site about the quickly narrowing race for House District 72 between Jeri Slone and Republican incumbent Scott Campbell: First, Campbell was charged with drunk driving. From the San Angelo Standard-Times: A drunken driving complaint has been filed against state Rep. Scott Campbell in Concho County, though Campbell said he was not intoxicated at the time.

Concho County Judge Allen Amos said Thursday a preliminary complaint was filed by the Texas Department of Public Safety. The complaint, which is meant to show probable cause that a charge may be filed, stems from an incident that happened sometime in July, Campbell said. Information about the date of the incident was not available this afternoon.

In a written statement, Campbell said he was not stopped by DPS troopers for drunken driving, though he said he had consumed alcohol. Campbell said he felt ill while driving and pulled off the road. He called a DPS dispatcher, then waited for troopers to arrive, and was taken home by a DPS official, he said.

Campbell said in his statement he completed 28 days of alcohol treatment after the incident.
​So that's no good. But what could be worse than drunk driving? How's about indecent exposure. Also from the Standard-Times but quoted on the TDP Website: State Rep. Scott Campbell has been accused of indecent exposure by a local masseuse, who has declined to file criminal charges.

The allegation is detailed in a San Angelo Police Department report obtained
Wednesday by the Standard-Times.

Police Chief Tim Vasquez said the case is no longer being investigated.

The alleged incident happened May 19 at the Palladian Day Spa, 3013
Knickerbocker Road. (...)

The Standard-Times obtained a copy of the report through a third party,
a month after requesting the report from the San Angelo Police Department.
The information request has not produced a copy of the report.

The police report states a man signed a registry at the spa using the
name Scott Kimble. A witness gave police the license plate number of the
man's vehicle, which at the time was registered to former state Rep. Rob
Junell. The plate is now registered to Campbell.

Junell is a federal judge in Midland. The license plate type is given to
state representatives.

During the massage, the report said, the man exposed himself in a sexual
manner to the masseuse, who no longer works at the spa. The alleged victim
declined to file charges and would not talk to the Standard-Times. The
newspaper's practice is to withhold the names of alleged victims in sexual
cases.

In Texas, indecent exposure to an adult is a misdemeanor.

Linda Holler, owner of the day spa, said the man came out of the room
and stopped at the register to pay. Holler said the man said he was sorry.
She said she called police because she did not think the man should be
driving. (...)
​So driving drunk and then showing his wang off at a massage parlor. Sounds pretty shady. Well why not add assaulting a police officer to the mix? From the Standard-Times, once again hosted by the TDP: Two additional West Texas lawmen say they witnessed a roadside incident involving state Rep. Scott Campbell, with one saying he smelled alcohol on the San Angelo Republican, and the other saying Campbell was combative.

The lawmen, an Eden police officer and a Concho County sheriff's deputy, also said the representative left the scene despite being told to stay.

Eden Police Officer Bruce Yancy stated he "detected the odor of an alcoholic-type beverage" on Campbell when he spoke with him July 17, according to an Eden Police Department incident report received Thursday by the Standard-Times.

Concho County Sheriff's Deputy Ray Francis said in an interview that Campbell was belligerent and looked disheveled.

"He said things like, 'If you want to fight, we can fight,'" Francis said. (...)

Yancy walked to the window of Campbell's Ford pickup truck and said he smelled alcohol, the report states. The officer asked Campbell not to leave.

"Mr. Campbell became very irritated and stated that he only wanted to be followed home," the report states.

Campbell then drove away, according to the report.

Yancy followed Campbell until they met Bennie about a mile south of Eden.

Deputy Francis said he met Yancy, Bennie and Campbell and saw Bennie speaking to the representative. Francis said Campbell became angry.

"I spent most of my time trying to calm him down," Francis said.

Sanders said that despite smelling alcohol on Campbell, his officer did not take further action because the DPS was in charge of the scene.
​Yikes! Sounds like Mr. Campbell should be taking care of some personal issues rather than running for state office.


----------



## Channelcat (May 22, 2004)

*Report them now*

If they shot deer and made no attempt to retrieve them, that is a violation of the law.
It's sad you don't have better neighbors, but that still is no reason to stop thousands of law abiding hunters to lose their hunting rights, and for some small landowners to lose income from leasing their property.



Bucksnort said:


> The reason I like this bill is because it WOULD benifit me. As I posted on an earlier post my neighbors owned 341 acres. He bordered 2.5 miles of our property line. He had 6 stands right on the fence...I mean a foot from the fence. He and his hillbilly buddies shot 22 deer off of their property last season. We asked him very nicely if he would move his stands off the property line. He told us "Get Fkd, that he was the landowner and we just leased our property and he would do what he wanted too" in those exact words. I know they were shooting deer on our side of the fence and I know that they shot deer that jumped onto our side of the fence and they never bothered to retrieve them. I feel that because of their unethical behavior it has dramatically effected our deer population and will take a couple of years to recover. Anyway, he sold the property and the new owner has cut some senderos and has only put up three stands. I think I have personally heard 4 shots come from the property. The new guy is ethical. We don't need a law for him......but the previous jerk....he needs to see jail time and if this bill is made into law I will call the game warden everytime I see a violation. PERIOD!!!!


----------



## Sea-Slug (May 28, 2004)

*100 acres*

This Bill would limit tracts of land 100 acres or less to 1 stand each depending on the layout. 660 acres(section) is about 1 mile square, or 5000+ feet by 5000+ feet. Divide that by 7. That gives you 95 acres. That leaves you with 714 feet by 714 feet. Divide by 3 for yard conversion. Thats 238 yards by 238 yards. If it were perfectly square, no stands or feeders allowed legaly on this 95 acres. That means forget it on 60 acres, or 40. This is BS to the extreme. Whoever proposed this should be strung up.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 28, 2004)

Bucksnort said:


> ......if this bill is made into law I will call the game warden everytime I see a violation. PERIOD!!!!


If you didnt call the game warden on him back when he was shooting across the fence, then why would you even think of doing it now? There were plenty of laws in place that are against that kind of behavior. Why do you need a new law to start calling the game warden?

I hear ya though. I told my wife that as soon as she buys me those new sneakers, Im gonna start running five miles a day......lol...yeah right.


----------



## pkfav (Jun 8, 2004)

*pkfav*

It`s a cryin shame when the legislature&peta gets involved and infringe upon landowners& hunters rights!but i think it is a good rule as there is so many unethical hunters out there!i have an 80 acre lease with 3000 acres around 3 sides of me.no prob there. but the back side of my property has some yahoos from the metroplex that hunted day&night with dogs&4 wheelers and on foot right up to my fencline all deer season and absolutley drove me nuts!this law won`t solve those problems but the gamo will!and by the way not one of my stands are anywhere close to a fencline nor my feeders! we have to control ourselves as a group and when that isnt possible call GAMEY!!!!!


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 28, 2004)

pkfav said:


> but the back side of my property has some yahoos from the metroplex that hunted day&night with dogs&4 wheelers and on foot right up to my fencline all deer season and absolutley drove me nuts!this law won`t solve those problems but the gamo will!!


Perfectly legal as long as he was hunting hogs. There are 2 things you can do: Deal with it, or get another lease. Because as long as he is legal, there isnt anything you can do about it.


----------



## yamahammer (Aug 7, 2004)

*Sea-slug, heres a little clarification of the numbers*

Read sea-slugs post and ran a few numbers ya'll might be interested in.

A mile is 5,280 feet, or 1,760 yds.

One square mile ( a section) is 640 acres, which equals 27,878,400 square feet, or 3,097,600 square yards (9 square feet=1square yard).

3,097,600sq.yds./640 acres = 4,840 square yds. per acre.

So, the to find the smallest piece of property you can have a feeder on, use the following equation(this does not consider a circular piece of property, don't see many of those..lol). 150 yds. from any perimeter would have to be 300 yds wide, if it is exactly square, is 300 yds. x 300 yds. This is 90,000 sq. yds. Divide this number by 4,840 sq. yds. per acre, and you get this -- 90,000sq.yds./4,840sq.yds. per acre= 18.6 acres

An exactly square property of 18.6 acres (300yds. x 300yds.) is the smallest piece of property that can legally have a stand or feeder on it without adjacent landowners written permission.

Another thing I worked out is the amount of acreage an owner of an exactly square section will not be able to put a stand or feeder on. Adding up the perimeter yardage x 150 yards of perimeter barrier and subtracting the overlap equals about 199 acres of his/her 640 acres.

If you guys catch any errors in my calculations, let me know.


----------



## pkfav (Jun 8, 2004)

*pkfav*

In my county its my understanding that you can`t hunt with dogs after dark during deer season.you have all the rest of the year to do it!i spoke with the ranch manager of the 3000 acres and he too seen what i have been observing and is getting the game warden involved as he watched them as i have drive and shoot everything in thier path(deer,hogs,turkey,etc.)lucky for them,i am a dog owner also, as his dogs have came thru my property and i just end my hunt for the day!just after x-mas,i sat on a high spot and watched them (midnight) drive critters with dogs shooting everthing that moved including shooting turkey off the roost that nightas i know exactly where the roosts are because i have been on my lease for 6 years.in a period of 1 1/2 hours they shot 46 times.this all is clearly illegal and obviously unethical!as i`m sure many ETHICAL hunters will agree.it is clear to me that the fence-line problem is all due to UNETHICAL hunters who don`t care about thier nieghbors!the game warden will take care of my problem.but most of the time if i have a problem as on previous leases,i try to work it out with my neighbors and if that don`t work,let the game warden take over.because although thier acts may be legal-that don`t make it ETHICAL and most game wardens WILL go have a talk with them and let them know they may be in thier legal rights but they are being UNETHICAL and he will be watching them.and that usually will take care of it.if that don`t work then and only then will i entertain the idea of looking for another lease!sometimes the only way to get thru a thick headed nieghbor is to have gamey have a talk with them!and anytime someone breaks the game laws,he will gladly ticket them and set them on the strait&narrow!!!!!be kind to your nieghbors!!!!!


----------



## bowmaster (Dec 7, 2004)

Cost of leases will go up.


----------



## Sea-Slug (May 28, 2004)

*Yamahammer- Thanks for the Correction- Im no math major*

Hey Yamahammer- Thanks for the correction. I posted that before my first cup of coffee. I never was a math genious anyway. But with your correct numbers I think it makes my intended point. If on a section you lose almost 30% of your land for feeders or stands, you would loose even a higher percentage of land to stands or feeders on smaller tracts. Someone do this math- how much land out of 60 acres would be illegal for stands or feeders if it were square? I'm sure it would be at least 50%. You loose almost all of it on 40 acres.
Hey PKFav- Go visit your neighbors and reason with them. This proposed law will not solve your problem, they will still be able to ride and hunt the fence with dogs if this passes. Every stand we had on Mosely's Place would have been illegal. Every stand on Pops Nokie place would be illegal. This only hurts the small landowner and his leasers. Your little place wont fair a whole lot better. We need to stop this law from passing. I think you would have to move Leann's stand and feeder on the place you have now.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 28, 2004)

*pkfav*

This sucks. Im sorry you have to deal with losers like this. Its hard to believe people do stuff like that. They must have been dropped on thier heads as babies.

You have more nerve than I do. That would have been a dead dog walking.


----------



## yamahammer (Aug 7, 2004)

sea-slug, didn't mean to correct you, just to clarify the point you were making, as I understand what you were saying. I agree. It poses some difficulty(or extreme difficulty) for small landowners to comply. Still, there is the consession that you can put one anywhere you want to with permission from the landowner adjoining the 150 yd. boundary where you want to put a stand. Will work great if you have a mutually respectful relationship with your neighbor. In a perfect World...........................
We all know this is not a perfect World, so I think this will be a tough bill for some. Still trying to decide if I agree with it or not. I like it on the whole, just don't think it is fair to some. Maybe buying a ghillie suit will be a good idea for hunting in the future. Just don't kill the deer with a knife or the State will confiscate your deer, not sporting enough..LOL


----------



## Bucksnort (Jun 29, 2004)

Palmetto said:


> If you didnt call the game warden on him back when he was shooting across the fence, then why would you even think of doing it now? There were plenty of laws in place that are against that kind of behavior. Why do you need a new law to start calling the game warden?
> 
> I hear ya though. I told my wife that as soon as she buys me those new sneakers, Im gonna start running five miles a day......lol...yeah right.


Palmetto, is there something in my post that made you think I did not call the GW on them? I'm pretty much on top of the laws and know what the violation are. Though, I do appriciate you pointing them out to me. But fyi, I never have called the warden on anybody. Just if they are that brazen I know a barbed wire fence isn't going to stop them....but like I said they are gone...I still think it is a good bill but probably needs adjusting for the smaller landowner and I would do my duty as a citizen to notify the authorities of any violations. For the smaller land owner, maybe something like only 1 deer taken per 50 acres. I don't agree with the guy who buys a 40 acre plot next to the large chunk of land then shoots every deer he sees. This is alot of the reason people get high fenced. Oh yeah, just rememberd I have called the GW. I was fishing the surf and the clowns next to me had a stringer full of 10" specks. Got out of the water and called Operation Game Thief. Ya know what. They never showed up. and yes I did have the brass in me to tell the guys they were illegal..They said they didn't care and were keeping the fish.....sometimes these so called sportsmen need to check theirselves.


----------



## Sharkhunter (May 22, 2004)

All I have to say is we don't want big goverment controlling our land. Next it will be no rifles because the bullet goes to far or there to loud. We'll all be using shotguns and bows. Best to just let a good thing be, if they shoot across the fence turn them in. It's best for use to govern our selves and not rely on "goverment" to solve all our problems.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

I do not like fenceline hunters but I hate government telling me what to do. Someone needs to flush this bill down the toilet.


----------



## pkfav (Jun 8, 2004)

*pkfav*



Sharkhunter said:


> All I have to say is we don't want big goverment controlling our land. Next it will be no rifles because the bullet goes to far or there to loud. We'll all be using shotguns and bows. Best to just let a good thing be, if they shoot across the fence turn them in. It's best for use to govern our selves and not rely on "goverment" to solve all our problems.


SHARKHUNTER-YOU HAVE IT RIGHT! we don`t need this bill at all.the law is there already.if a person has a fencehopper,then they should use the laws already in place and just call gamey.and everyone should contact the guy who is trying to put this before our law makers and ask him just what he is trying to accomplish! we already have yahoo`s high-fencing in OUR-(the people of texas) deer!ohh by the way sea slug.i have a great relationship with my neighbor on the 3000 acres-its the thickheaded unethical,been dropped on thier head people on one fencline of my place that is the only problem.and if you remember,the guy at our place at moselys on the next property who shot your pet doe right in front of you in your feeder pen and then later you shot a 9 point not realizing he was over the fence,that i walked up and calmed things down and he ended up lifting your buck over the fence and giving it too you and we never had no more problems with him!i work with the public in my business and always try to give a person a chance to correct his error, some people just don`t care-thus the phrase UNETHICAL-take your game cam and set it on your fencline and catch that idiot that has robbed you and made you have to put locks on your stands(what a crock) and when you get a good picture of showing him clearly trespassing,call the gamey and have em arrested!apathy i believe has set in on too many of us.i have called the game warden and he didnt show.when that happens you call austin and report it and i guarantee you heads will roll and a game warden will show up and take care of the problem!if the guy who is presenting this bill(with a record that proves he should not be representing the people of texas)does not drop it from the ballot.all of us should band togetner and start a petition,which is the only way to be heard besides calling his office andlet our representatives know what we want and don`t want-such as this pharse of a bill!I pay $1600 a year for my wife and i to shoot a buck a-piece and all the hogs i want(cause the landowner hates the destuction they cause) and a few gobblers each season.i may not have a big place but the 30 years i have hunt texas,my place is the one you look your whole life for.so i will do my part to make sure PETA or some represenative don`t screw with my rights!Or some yahoo-in-bred across the fence-he will pay fines or set in jail till he abides by the rules!one last note,i have 2 feeders and 2 stands on my place to, of course supplement the feed for the wildlife and give my wife a place to sit and hunt. but i spend most of my time disguising myself as a bush or hunt the shadows and hate being confined to a stand and have never been a fence-hunter as it is against my ethics!attached is the buck i shot last year-one of 2 big-uns off my LITTLE place in 5 years!so everybody stand up for your rights and lets get this fencelaw off the books as it is not needed,we already have plenty of laws to cover the problem!good luck hunting& set hook when ya can! pkfav


----------



## pkfav (Jun 8, 2004)

just a follow -up!you can go to http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist72/campbell.htm and voice your opinion to mr.campbell and be heard.if his office gets unindated with e-mails,we may not have to petition it!stand up and be heard! thanks pkfav


----------



## pkfav (Jun 8, 2004)

okay,i took it upon myself to call rep. scott campbell`s office.of course he was out of pocket,so i talked with his next in charge-justin.i told him of our plight and dismay with this bill and i am proud to say that "THE BILL HAS BEEN DROPPED" thanks to all who e-mailed and called his office and a special thanks to BIGSTICK for bringing this to all of our attention!good job everyone! thanks pkfav


----------



## Pablo (May 21, 2004)

Here's my message to Rep. Campbell.

Mr. Campbell, I just read your proposed bill regulating placement of hunting blinds and, frankly, I'm appalled that the government would take it upon themselves to place restrictions on a property that should be implemented by the landowner instead. This is blatant violation of private property rights in which the government should have no voice.

As a landowner myself, I feel that it is none of the goverment's business what I construct/build/erect on my property as long as it is within the law. What will you decide to do next, tell me I can't build a set of cattle pens next to the road on my boundary fence? Or I can't clear my fenceline to be able to drive around?

Yes, there are instances where you have a neighbor that places a blind or feeder on the fence and nothing can be done about it. That's just the way it is. I have rules stating that no one can place a blind closer than 100 yds from a boundary fence and that is the way it should be-left to the landowner. 

What if I owned a 300 yd wide by 1 mile long piece of land? I couldn't place anything on it to hunt out of. 

Pardon me for being blunt, but I call BS on this bill. Please reconsider and withdraw it. No property owner should want any more governmental control on his/her property.

Thank you for your time.
Wes Shahan


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

pkfav said:


> so i talked with his next in charge-justin.i told him of our plight and dismay with this bill and i am proud to say that "THE BILL HAS BEEN DROPPED" thanks to all who e-mailed and called his office


Keep calling and sending emails. Use up all your ammo so it won't have a chance to be eaten by anyone else. For some reason I don't believe "Justin" and until it is off the website I will worry. It still shows *Filed*.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2www/tlo/billhist/billhist.d2w/report?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00185&SORT=Asc

Actions

History · Text · *Actions* · Captions · Authors · Next Bill

*Bill: HB 185 *- *Legislative Session: 79(R)*

Sort actions by: 
Past to Recent (Ascending) | Recent to Past (Descending) DESCRIPTIONCOMMENTDATEJOURNAL PAGEH *Filed*12/02/20040


----------



## Sean Hoffmann (May 24, 2004)

*I'll e-mail him this:*

I drafted and shared the following e-mail with some folks. Partisan and personal? You bet.

Props to yammahammer for doing the math and Trouthunter for the background check.

His challenger in the last election must have been gawd-awful. Here goes:

State Rep. Scott Campbell, R-San Angelo, has authored HB 185. Anyone who hunts or owns property in the State of Texas should be alarmed at this unprecedented attempt to not only squash hunting rights but also mandate what individuals can/cannot do with their private property.
In essence, the bill stipulates that hunting blinds and feeders cannot be placed within 150 yards of a property fence line without a written agreement from the neighboring property owner.

On the surface, this may sound like a good idea, especially for large landowners who feel their deer management efforts are being undermined by smaller, neighboring landowners who harvest "their" deer by strategically placing blinds and feeders placed along a fence line. While landowners are stewards of wildlife, they do not own Texas' whitetail deer herd. Rather, deer are owned by the state, and a fence-hopping deer is fair game for whoever owns the property or has trespass rights to the deer's location at any given moment, notwithstanding other restrictions.

However, do landowners want Big Government controlling their land? Will Big Government begin to dictate where wells can be dug, where ranch roads can be built, where cattle can graze, where crops can be planted? Can we expect further restrictions on what firearms can or cannot be used on private property? What's next-no rifles, only bows and shotguns?
The ramifications of the passage of HB 185 would have serious personal freedom and economic effect on landowners of smaller properties. Let's do the math. If Rep. Campbell's bill passes, an exactly square property of 18.6 acres (300yds. x 300yds.) is the smallest piece of property that can legally have a stand or feeder on it without adjacent landowner's written permission.

Let's consider a square section (640 acres). Perimeter yardage multiplied by 150 yards of perimeter barrier and subtracting the overlap equals about 199 acres of his/her 640 acres being deemed off limits to feeders and blinds under HB 185. Nearly a third of the property could not host a blind or feeder without written consent of a neighboring landowner.

I'd expect an anti-hunting, anti-private property rights bill such as HB 185 to be drafted by an ultra-left wing Democrat from Dallas or Austin or Houston. Quite frankly I'm embarrassed that this is being proposed by a Republican, rural or urban.

To view the bill, click this link:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00185&VERSION=1&TYPE=Bhttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-...&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00185&VERSION=1&TYPE=Bhttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-...&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00185&VERSION=1&TYPE=Bhttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-...&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00185&VERSION=1&TYPE=Bhttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-...&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00185&VERSION=1&TYPE=B

To share your displeasure or support of HB 185, click this link:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/member...72/campbell.htm

According to the San Angelo Standard-Times, Rep. Campbell has been involved in three separate incidents, including two during Fall 2004, such as a drunken driving complaint, alleged indecent exposure at a massage parlor, and alcohol-related combativeness toward two West Texas lawmen.

Sounds like he has no business drafting bills, much less honorably serving his constituents.

Sean Hoffmann
San Antonio, TX


----------



## Pablo (May 21, 2004)

Sic 'em HHH!

Pablo


----------



## pkfav (Jun 8, 2004)

goood job pablo-lol at the ending line! anybody else got any e-mails to rep.campbell they want to share?


----------



## pkfav (Jun 8, 2004)

thanks infamous,i for one will continue to houndog them till it is off the website and we have more reassurrance other than justins word!


----------



## pkfav (Jun 8, 2004)

I just got off the phone with rep campbells office yet again.HB185 has been tabled or killed but won`t show dropped on the website till the next time the commitee meets-whenever that might be,but was told it has been tabled which means it won`t even come before the committee.lets keep the pressure on until they have satisfied our desire to show it hasgone away!ya`ll keep up the good work! 
sethook instead of reading a book!!!!


----------



## Channelcat (May 22, 2004)

The content of Rep. Campbell's reply to my e-mail.

Thank you for your inquiry regarding HB 185. Due to many concerns
expressed by individuals throughout the state, Rep. Campbell has chosen
to pull down the bill at this time.

Denise M. Bloomquist
Chief of Staff for Rep. Scott Campbell


----------



## pkfav (Jun 8, 2004)

*proposal hb185 form e-mail*

thanks channel cat saves me some time ,as i was going to put up the very same e-mail i got.it`s a twin!LOL set hook pkfav


----------



## Droptine (Dec 9, 2004)

Looks like these bills haven't died yet, especially HB 560.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2www/tlo/billhist/billhist.d2w/report?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00560

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2www/tlo/billhist/actions.d2w/report?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00560&SORT=Asc

Droptine


----------



## Redfishr (Jul 26, 2004)

Bucksnort said:


> Our current lease contract is no stand closer than 200 yards to the fence line.


We have same aggreements with other hunters and nieghbors.
Just got lucky to have a good lease and good neighbors.


----------



## swTXSU (Aug 17, 2004)

*Ownership of Deer*

"While landowners are stewards of wildlife, they do not own Texas' whitetail deer herd. Rather, deer are owned by the state"

I guess you haven't seen SB 1765 that was passed out of Senate Natural Resources last week.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 28, 2004)

swTXSU said:


> "While landowners are stewards of wildlife, they do not own Texas' whitetail deer herd. Rather, deer are owned by the state"
> 
> I guess you haven't seen SB 1765 that was passed out of Senate Natural Resources last week.


The same applies to Texas beaches, but people still think they own them.

How does this work with high fences? Seems to me this statement makes them illegal?


----------

