The GW had a stern talking with me this year about this very topic. I was driving back from lease and the taxidermist was on the way so I swung in and dropped off the head and cape, which contained my tag taped to the antlers. Then proceeded on to my processor, where I met the GW. Learned a big lesson that day and was cut a break, thankfully. He stated it doesn't matter which way I drop off the meat, but the tag stays with the meat, no if and or buts about it. Met the same GW 2 weeks later at the same processor, dropped off the meat and left the tag with them, asked the GW of i had everything done correctly and he said yes, took the head to taxidermist and had no problem dropping it off without any paperwork

BigPig, we can conclude he does not read all the TPWD rules. Surprise him next time

My understanding is this:

Sec.61.022.
TAKING WILDLIFE RESOURCES WITHOUT CONSENT OF
LANDOWNER PROHIBITED. (a) No person may hunt or catch by any means
or method or possess a wildlife resource at any time and at any
place covered by this chapter unless the owner of the land,
submerged land, or water, or the owner's agent, consents.
(b)Except as provided by Subsection (c), a person who
violates Subsection (a) the first time commits an offense that is a
Class A Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor and is punishable in
addition by the revocation or suspension under Section 12.5015 of 2
hunting and fishing licenses and permits.
(c)A person who violates Subsection (a) the first time by
killing a desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, mule deer, or
white-tailed deer commits an offense that is a Parks and Wildlife
Code state jail felony and is punishable in addition by the
revocation or suspension under Section 12.5015 of hunting and
fishing licenses and permits.

I'm assuming (since the article doesn't explicit state this) that the hunter is alleged to not have had landowner consent to harvest that specific deer. He could presumably shoot other deer, but not that one.

The fact that he circumvented the rules (possibly the law) by not checking the deer could be viewed as intent or culpability (knowingly and intentionally). If he then inappropriately tagged the deer and sneaked the dead deer off of the ranch, hoping nobody would know, then I'm guessing that's why they classify it as poaching.

It would be quite easy to do. Shoot the deer, gut it and stash it in the brush. Then pick it up on the way out, bypassing the required check station and placing a tag on it from his license instead of an MLD tag.

I think we can all conclude that he did not have landowner consent to do that and therefore, it's considered poaching. That's my take on it. I maybe wrong, maybe right. Just a SWAG based upon my limited knowledge.

Land Pirate is correct I believe.

But, I didn't know that taking game without landowners consent is a felony.

If there is an agreement between a Landowner & a Lessee, in regards to specific game or property, & that agreement is broken by the Lessee, I would think that would be poaching or trespassing.

If a Landowner grants permission to shoot deer, that doesn't mean the Lessee Dan shoot turkey, even thought the law allow for turkey hunting. Likewise, if a LO grants permission to hunt a north pasture, & the lessee hunts in his south pasture, that seems like trespassing.

As the article states "Normally the buck would be off-limits until it was six years old, but a pact was made among the hunters that the buck would be allowed to live out its natural life and spread its genes into the gene pool for as long as it lived. This was a very difficult decision, but it was subject to change if they determined that the buck would be a world record at age six. They might decide to cash in the chips."

If hunters pays 10K for a lease for 10 years and they finally produce a 200+ 4 1/2 yr. old and they vote him off limits (Maybe) the rest of his life (Maybe) ..... Sounds like the they vote was not unanimous IMO a big problem.

This decision was made in a pact among hunters.... not landowner. It reads like a self serving, self inflicted train wreck between hunters over thinking their management program.

Can you post a link to the pact that you speak of, I would like to read it. Thanks

I agree with BP.
The way that management plan was explained to me for the tax exemption, was you just have to develop a wild life plan and present it, once approved, you qualify for the continued tax break. (among other criteria) IMO it isn't a state certified plan that has passed the normal qualifiers to become a "law", it is a plan to reach the goal of an existing law. An LO cant develop any plan that is then perceived as a "law", especially if it applies to a 3rd party. LO may loose his tax status IDK

I don't think based on the article, there is anything close to calling this "poaching", even if it was MLD?? "If" he had an open tag to use....

As many of you have pointed out, there is a key piece missing from this article. The part where the article says he did not "tag" the deer, may give a clue as to what real direction this story comes from.

From the article

"Taking a buck off the ranch without going through the check-in is illegal." Is this the standard for MLD??
I don't know, the only few times I have hunted MLD (as a guest), seemed most important for the biologist to get those figures. Is it a violation of state game laws, or just a criteria to be able maintain MLD status??

If the feds where able to get a search warrant under the Lacy Act, someone swore an affidavit with enough evidence to convince a magistrate.

This is not the required for MLD. There is not a physical check in station required.

I think the violation was not tagging the deer with the MLD tag and crossing state lines with the untagged deer.

You are required through MLD to register the deer with the ranch or ranch manager with a game harvest sheet that has the weight, sex, age, main beam length, total points etc...it does not have to be checked by them, but it is required that the information be turned in and the tag stay on the animal until reaching it's final destination.

Thanks Pitchfork, that makes sense. We still don't know if it was an MLD lease and it doesn't sound like they did any doe hunting in the article.

Your welcome. I would have to believe with the amount of land on that ranch and the intense management taking place it was MLD.

https://tpwd.texas.gov/regulations/outdo...g-and-taxidermy
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and read:

The landowner or his agent (he designates) are the only ones who can sign the MLD permit. The permits can not be pre-signed from what I was told. The buck or doe does not have to be tagged at the site of the kill, but can be tagged at the HQ or storage/cleaning area(or was allowed in the past). So if this buck was legally tagged under MLD but the hunter forged a signature then it was a violation.

Lot of assuming on all of our parts on this without a lot of key details.

Ours are all signed before we receive them. They hand them out to us at our annual kick off meeting with game wardens present, so it must be legal to do so. It is not legally tagged until the harvest sheet is turned in. These are required to be turned in immediately after tagging the animal.

Ours were done that way, but besides weight and just logging the deer to have a corresponding # in the log for it everything else was done off-site (scoring, aging, etc). Not using an MLD tag isn't always a crisis bc there's been instances where TPWD didn't get permits to folks until general rifle was about to start so you've got state tags being used on MLD properties. One of those things where if you're scared enough to get off the lease anyway, just man up and tell them you shot it, slap a permit on it and skip all the way to ID when they kick you off the lease. This deal screams lots of butt hurt.

First off, did anyone see the carcass and see if it was in fact tagged? Answer: NO. So this is pure conjecture. How does anyone really know if the buck was tagged before it crossed the state line? Did he get pulled over and checked? Nope.

Second, where in the article does it say the deer was mounted in TX? If the taxidermy was done in another state then TX laws on how the taxidermist records the tag info is not relevant. If you take a buck from TX to a taxidermist in ID all the taxidermist will want to see if the license and he/she will dutifully record the license number and the state the license was issued it. TX law doesn't extend past the border of TX, like it or not.

Third: I've never seen a deer tag that says a deer has to be a certain age before it is taken. Sometimes there are antler restrictions or sex restrictions but but not age. If he had a valid tag then in the eyes of TX tat was a legal deer. He may have violated ranch rules or lease rules or even a "gentleman's agreement" but none of those are illegal. Remember it is what the law says and not what the ranch owner or other leasees say.

Should he have shot the buck? Probably not. Did he break any state game laws in killing the buck? Probably not.

As others states, this is poorly written article. Leases do not have their own "laws". I can't add anything that others haven't already stated. The gentleman may have shot a deer that was "off limits" but certainly it wasn't illegal. Was a heck of a deer, that's for sure.

More like probably so.

See above post from Land Pirate.

Also, we don't know from the article whether or not it is MLD, but in all likelihood it is.

If that's the case, you ARE illegal if you tag the deer with a regular deer tag on MLD level 2 or 3 properties. You are also illegal if you do tag it with a MLD tag but fail to turn in the game harvest sheet immediately (they define immediately as soon as reasonably possible) after the MLD tag is put on the animal.

see original post link

"Normally the buck would be off-limits until it was six years old, but a pact was made among the hunters that the buck would be allowed to live out its natural life and spread its genes into the gene pool for as long as it lived. This was a very difficult decision, but it was subject to change if they determined that the buck would be a world record at age six. They might decide to cash in the chips."

You've just made my point. Nobody knows if it was MLD or not or if it was in any way illegal in the eyes of the actual law. You've even just admitted it. Not guilty until proven guilty. Or did this suddenly change? Lot's of accusations but not a lot of facts. I really don't see the issue with him taking the buck but then I have never been obsessed with antlers anyways. The amount of exposed bone on a buck's head isn't relevant to me. Never saw an antler yet that was edible.

Quoted from the article...

You don't see the issue with him taking the buck? The Ranch owner and lease hunters all agree to let the deer walk and this guy waits until everyone leaves and then kills the buck and sneaks it off the ranch?

Being obsessed with antlers is irrelevant. The guy got on a ranch and lease with rules and guidelines and then ignores them. Illegal or not - totally out of bounds for this guy to kill this buck. I have hunted with guys like you and want nothing to do with you or your type. Remind me not to ever go into business with you or have you anywhere near my lease.

From what I read the illegal act was not logging the deer at ranch headquartets. The lavy act involves trade of illegal game or wildlife. It must have been broadened to simply include possession.

Thee hunter was in a agreement with the other members to never kill the deer. Subject to change year 6. These guys spend big money to hunt this ranch and wanted to keep his genetics. I would be pissed

Are you really that naive? They are not going to be able to confiscate the deer like they already have in the pictures of the article and charge him without facts. You don't see the issue? Yeah I can see that the more you type.