Sad tale of the poaching of SuperBuck

http://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2016/02/11/the-tragic-saga-of-a-texas-superbuck/

I don't understand what was done illegally. I read the entire article, and I didn't see where they clearly mentioned just what the illegal part was. Supposedly, he poached it, but how? He hunted the place for ten years, so wasn't he allowed to hunt there? It was shot during season, right? Can doing something the landowner or lease manager doesn't allow be illegal?

I too have a problem seeing where he broke the law, except the self imposed one of the lease manager. The only thing I can think of is that he did not "tag" the deer. That would be breaking the law, but nowhere do I see where he "poached" the deer. He did break lease rules, but that should not be considered poaching by the state. that should be considered being an Ahole by the other lease holders. There has to be more of this to get the Texas GW's involved.

I would like to know the outcome of this! Thanks for posting this however there are a few unanswered questions regarding the charges. What were the Federal charges in violation of the Lacey Act?! Had this idiot Weiner already tagged out before shooting the "Super Buck"? Is the ranch owner going to file in civil court?

The hunter paid $10,000 to hunt. He harvested a deer on land he legally had a right to hunt. He had the deer he harvested mounted. I'll assume by a taxidermist who checked the tag. I don't believe it is illegal for an out of state hunter to harvest a deer and take it home in a cooler. If he had a license.... I'll assume he did since he hunted there for 10 years. Maybe not. Just not sure why a person would be on a lease for 10 years at 10K and not own a license.
As far as check-in the article reads as though it is a "ranch rule" not a state rule. So I can see he violated a ranch rule or ranch contract. Not sure the State gets involved with enforcing lease contracts as long as the follow state laws.. A lease might give you the right to hunt only mallards but it would be hard for the state to knock on your door because you shot a legal wood duck. Usually breaking a lease rule gets you thrown off or maybe a fine.

More to the story.. I think.

I read the whole article and don't see where any laws were broken. This is Texas and not checking in a deer at ranch headquarters has never been against the law. I also don't understand why anyone would go to that much trouble and expense to catch someone in a lie.

The article did seem to me to be written by someone that isn't all that familiar with Texas hunting, so I'm guessing they missed a detail.

Sounds a lot like "Making a Murder" to me. Ranch owner wasn't happy that trophy buck was killed, has the money and the contacts to get what he thinks is his property back, and forces his hand. No doubt the hunter knew he violated lease rules, which can't be enforced by Gamewardens. Everything about this story sounds fishy, but then again, the writer is no different than the buffoons we watch on the news everyday, and likely doesn't have all the facts of the case.

If a rancher tells you that you can only shoot one animal, yet you kill two, is that poaching? Is it punishable by the state? If a rancher tells you you can shoot a blackbuck and you shoot an axis, same question. Where is the line drawn? If the county is two bucks, but the ranch rules are one buck, can you get charged for shooting two?

Not tagging deer, moving deer off property without tag, across state line, and could possibly face civil charges from other lease holders. Depends on definition of poach. Just asking ??

Same here. No tag is a state violation but not sure with the way the story was told, how they could know he didn't.

That's what I want to know. I've always wondered this, and the article makes it seem as though that's the case.

It never said that he didn't tag the animal. Or did I miss that.

That's what I thought.

It mentioned it, but it didn't specifically say that's what he did. It's not written in a very clear manner.

I may be wrong but I've always seen it as the lessee pays the lessor a trespass fee to hunt on their land. The game belongs to the collective state and is subject to state laws and limits set up by the state. The landowner may be able to file a civil suit for violating the lease agreement but I don't think the state has anything they can charge you with criminally.

Those are my thoughts as well but if this story is to be believed, we would be wrong.

There was obviously something that the story missed. If the only violation was of a stated lease rule to "check" the animal then the state wouldn't be involved. My guess is that this rule, from TXPW Outdoor Annual is the issue:

All deer taken on a property for which MLD permits have been issued must be tagged with the appropriate type of MLD permit. That includes recording the relevant details on the "TPWD Deer Harvest Log."

Failing to do this may be the reason "poaching" is cited. The hunter could have had permission to hunt, he could have tagged the deer with his license tag (and license log) but would have violated the regulations if the property was MLD. It does seem an extreme level of effort for the landowner to follow... my guess is that there was more of a falling out than just shooting the large deer. It may have precipitated the shooters action. He may have thought something like, "I'm angry with these people, so I'm going to shoot that big deer anyway!"

It was a poorly-written article, with the most pertinent details, what made the act illegal and hence "poaching".

Jim just sounds like an @$$hole who didnt give a [censored] about his customer for many years and wants to do max to penalize him. Jim should have just talked to Weiner and asked for a payment for violation.

Well, Im sure the land was under a wildlife tax exemption and you have to have an approved wildlife management plan which it sounds like they did. The plan called for only bucks 5-6 years or older to be taken and for all bucks to be checked in. The hunter killed the buck at 4 years of age and then did not check it in. Thus violating the states required management plan and seems like that would qualify as poaching an illegal deer.

None of which is mentioned in the article, yes it mentioned the hunters had a plan, but not that any state laws were violated.

Taxidermist don't care about the tags, only processors as that is the final destination for the meat, which is what constitutes the "game". The horns are just a trophy

Shooting a 4 year old deer instead of a 5 year old deer isn't poaching. Judging a deer on the hoof isn't exact. Lot of answered questions to that article. Something doesn't add up.

Taxidermist in Texas have to keep a log and all info from the tag/hunter resource document on the buck being mounted for 2 yrs now IIRC. So, Yes they do care about the tags.
If the deer was killed under MLD and not tagged with MLD permit then there is the problem. No mention of any tag, but my guess would be he tagged with his regular license tag. What we don't know is if he tagged it with his own tag of his license and made up a boggus ranch to write in on the tag when he filled it out. That would be a major issue on top of another major issue. There are plenty of those pesky details like that they are left out the article that we don't know about.

If the head does not accompany the carcass, then the head must be accompanied by a Wildlife Resource Document (WRD). 

WRD

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.

I'm guessing that he violated a signed contract with the ranch (re: checking in at the check-in station). It may not be poaching in the normal sense but I think it may be in the "legal" sense if he violated that contract.

In any event, he's an a-hole for shooting it and it's obvious he knew it was wrong to shoot it. He proved that by skipping the check-in.

Ramsey, if you're still hunting KS brush up on it to be 100% sure. Last I checked It basically includes any violation and the game in question crossing state lines. You being from TX will put you on the radar after the bad outfitter deals they've had go on up there...which included federal wardens posing as people you'd never suspect.

Apparently it was not an unanimous vote or the buck would have never been shot.

Now, I think we can agree the lease started out with a set of rules predicated on producing big bucks. Such rules as hunters will pay 10K a season, they will feed protein, manage the deer population numbers,buck to doe ratios, control predators, and not shoot any trophy bucks until the age of 6 1/2. Also hunters are restricted to only harvesting their trophy buck "After the rut (mid-late December) through (Mid January).

Now I also think we can agree the main objective of the lease was to grow "Big Mature Bucks" and it worked. And Sir I have followed your post and know you know how to raise Big Bucks

Now this is where we may disagree. The lease went off track IMO when "Superbuck" showed up. Now a certain 4 1/2 year old buck can be protected forever. "What's next" the buck I've been watching for 5 1/2... 6 1/2 years....Makes the off limit list. If I've been on a lease for 10 years and have invested funds, time, laid off the trigger helping to achieve the lease objectives and someone decides to protect the biggest up coming buck forever , this is no longer what I signed up for.... which was the very purpose of the lease...growing big bucks ... AND just maybe a "Superbuck"...


Now this being said he harvested a 4 1/2 year old buck and should pay the piper.... No excuses.


In conclusion.

Just my view

P.S. This is another guess. They said the buck was consistently coming to a place of protein and "corn feeder" just maybe it was showing up a "his stand"..... and he felt the rug was pulled out from under his 3 1/2 now 4 1/2 and future 6 1/2 record buck. Just a guess, but something triggered this action after 10 years.....

My guess is that this guy knew exactly what he was doing and knew it was the wrong thing to do. If he did not agree with the majority on the lease then he should get off of it - NOT wait until everyone leaves, kill the buck, and then try to sneak off the ranch. You bring up some valid points but under no circumstances can I justify doing what he did. And yes, maybe there is more to the story - but based on what I read he absolutely knew what he did was wrong but did it anyway

I agree that this guy is an SOB, but what I cannot is what he did to be charged with poaching in this article. Could someone quote the sentence where it states he poached this deer. The fact that he shot a deer that he said he would not shoot is a civil case, not a poaching case because he had paid to hunt deer on this property. I'm confused. A lot must have been left out of this article.

One thing is for sure, wildlife management plans makes enemies out of friends in a big damn hurry.

that is very true unless everyone agrees to whatever that plan is BEFORE they join a lease - clearly outlining the ranch owner/lease plan up front is key. Too often hunters join leases where their ideas are different from what the ranch/lease plans are.

We outline very clearly what our deer management plan is and if a potential hunter does not agree or like that plan then no problem - just don't join.

Talk about a story

If the ranch was MLD and the hunter used his personal tag on the deer, could that be the violation?

Sounds like the ranch changed their rules AFTER he was $100,000 into it. That by no means justifies what he did. I've rarely found two men who had the same management principles in practice.

In my view, he paid $10K to hunt each season under the rules in place for that season. So to me, the cumulative paid seems irrelevant. Fact that the Ranch/lease changed rules for going forward seems reasonable as long as the change was in place prior to him paying his money for this past season. At any rate, you are right - it is inexcusable period for him to have shot that deer

$90,000 + travel + labor + feeding would not be irrelevant to me. I would be livid, I would not have paid them another dime. I would not have illegally killed that buck. For that, this guy should hang. But I can empathize with his frustration, if in fact that is what we're dealing with here.

Which brings me back to my original point. 10 guys, 10 years, friends WILL be lost.

The guy who pulled the trigger did not consider any of the others on the lease his friends when it came to killing that big buck. He was their friends when they all agreed not to kill the buck. After that it was all about himself and not his "friends".

Standman - so a ranch/lease should never change their management plan because hunters paid money in previous seasons? As long as the ranch/lease notifies all members of any changes prior to paying their money for the upcoming season, then the members have a choice weather to get back on or not. If they do not like the changes, don't get on.

And by the way - we have been on our lease for 8 years under a strict management plan - we are all still friends. Even the guys who got off the lease due to financial reason, etc. are still friends. So it can be done - it is a matter of clearly communicating the management plan up front - if someone does not like it then go hunt elsewhere. Pretty simple

Heavens no, they can and do change the rules, but that doesn't mean they don't ruffle feathers and step on toes. I agree the guy was selfish, and I have condemned his actions. I'll bet, if the truth be known, the reason he was at the top of the list of suspects, it was because he raised hell about sparing that buck when they made their pact.

Maybe I should have stated it in a different way. Some people value their friendships more than their deer hunting. Some do not. And I've seen it, it's ugly, and dumb.

Lost a close relationship with a family member because of a lease. It was, and is, ugly and dumb.

The management plan from the beginning was no bucks until 5 or 6, according to the article. This deer was 4 when he shot it. Regardless if they changed the rules he was still off limits.

Agreed

People management is part of deer management. Some ranches such as yours succeed in both ....More however end up with a "sad tale of......." Maybe one day we will read the rest of the story.
Good hunting

Way I read it too, on top of that there is a reason it's a 10k lease I'm sure it ain't that because they shoot 3 and 4 year Olds

And Sneaky...
I hate Sneaky

Bad deal

There was an agreement and the the guy was Sneaky plain and simple...

Wanna see the true nature of some people, get involved in a Lease with them and watch there actions and you will see the good ones rise to the top and quickly..

Always watch the Back Gate Boys with both eyes and TLK nailed it.

Reminds me of the old Western movies where the ten cowboys respect and honor the ranch owner and have buckerooed with the other fellows and fought Injuns and droughts and floods and grass fires and during this time the daughter grows up into a beautiful young woman and all the cowboys have a "hands off" understanding but then one day down at the swimming hole one of the cowboys can't contain himself and ravages the maiden. Law of the West and only as good as your handshake and your word, etc etc

Aint no deer in Duval Co. move it along

Sounds like a sorry dude, cant quite imagine why the group of supporters on the THF.

Ok this is crazy. I just found out that this guy was on our ranch before I leased it and he got kicked off by the ranch owner for being suspected of doing the same thing! In fact, he called me several years back wanting to get back on our ranch owner said no way. I thought the name sounded familiar.

Interesting tlk. Seems to be a trend with him. I am betting if he has hunted other places, you would get similar feedback.

our rancher said the guy would literally live at the ranch all season so he was there a lot when all the other hunters were gone. no telling what was shot.

A few things bother me from this article.

1.) Jim smiling/grinning from ear to ear in those photos is pretty strange I think

2.) The hunter not sticking to the game plan/pact of THEIR agreement.

The hunter is in the wrong, but I believe he'll get his mount back after he pays a lawsuit that the owner will probably win.

With a name like that a person is sure to remember it.

as others have said, the story is not clear on what legal violation was - however if the guy failed to tag or transported across state lines illegally then he will not get that deer back.

In fact, the TV hunting host Spook Spahn did it and ended up getting jail time. He was sentenced and broke his probation and spent 30 days in jail. Also keep in mind many ranch owners require a written, signed contract that outlines the management rules. It is a legal, binding contract. So if a hunter ignores the rules in that contract I would think he would have a hard time winning a lawsuit.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I think the LO wins the lawsuit no question. I can't speak for the "across state line rules", but I do believe he gets his mount back assuming he tagged the animal correctly. I just can't see someone paying 10K for a lease and not having a state hunting license.

It's going to all boil down to consent. If the landowner said that buck was off limits, then there was not consent. No means no. The hunter shot the buck anyway and attempted to sneak him out on the sly. He got caught. He'll spend a ton of money defending himself from criminal charges and civil lawsuits.

Don't know about y'all but that's a lot more trouble than I want just to hang a dead deer on the wall.

He was absolutely in the wrong, but will he get his deer back if he legally shot the animal with a valid license? Breaking the LO's rules isn't against Texas Law.

Sad..
Truly is

Agreed, but if you are dropping 10K a year on a lease, I doubt money is an issue. Also if they didn't get the agreement in writing it won't hold much water in court. He said/she said. Verbal agreements aren't much these days. Sounds like a bad deal all around.

Many landowners have hunters sign a contract that outlines the management rules - if this guy did and broke the contract by intentionally killing this deer and sneaking it off the ranch then he can be sued by the landowner

Yeah when I read the article it crossed my mind but I thought "no way". Then I asked our land owner and he said the guy was one in the same. Good luck to this guy ever getting onto another quality lease in Texas.

How could somebody do all that and then hang the head on their wall and enjoy it? Every time I walked by and looked at it I would feel guilty as hell - people amaze me

No, he will not. He did not legally tag the deer. Under MLD, which I can assure you a ranch like this is, you have not legally tagged the deer without registering the deer with the ranch owner or manager with a game harvest sheet. The sheet has the same number as the MLD tag. When he snuck this deer out without turning in the game harvest sheet and notifying the ranch of the harvest he was illegal from that moment going forward. Having a valid license would not make the harvest legal under these circumstances.

I'd imagine it happens all the time with deer that don't meet mgmt criteria & the managers just don't go through all of that to figure it out. I was suspicious it was happening on a lease I was on with a couple of guys, but no way to actually prove it. (And on that lease we were cleared to get on the highway with untagged deer, but were supposed to go directly to the check/weigh station).

you are correct - that ranch is MLD and you are legally required to tag and complete the MLD book as to details on the deer - if he did not do that then he broke the law in Texas

If I was your landowner I would find out when the trial was and sit right behind the guy in court. If I could testify I would knowing what he did in the past, but not caught at it...yet. Might even have a head or two hanging in is house from your lease from back when.

Illegally killed deer stay with TPWD.

Yep...and proceeded to cross state lines with it, violating the Lacy Act, causing the federales to get involved. All over a freaking deer I agree with LandPirate...a deer isn't worth that headache

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=578976

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310028

Current story and original game cam pics/updated info on TBH threads

yeah when I sent him the article and we talked, he said he started remembering good deer that "disappeared" - it was some years ago but it still bugged him and rightfully so

TxDispatcher, thanks bud, that pretty much brings it all together in those links, especially the last one.

"Guy cut the buck up and put the pieces around the property", was a graduate of A&M and a vet. SMDH

Love how his fishing guide buddy cooked his azz too..

I guess his fishing guide buddy was a lot more ethical than he was. I'm glad we have people that when they see something wrong will tell it and not just let it go saying it's none of their business.

Sort of what I said.

From the article.

..and in another post the members thought the deer was 5.5.

From the linked articles:

This buck ended up being poached by one of our own hunters. He scored 211 and is now owned by the state of Texas. In emails he had written to a friend that we obtained, he stated how he killed, snuck out, and disregarded the buck. He also didn't tag the deer with an MLD permit. According to the game wardens, this man is going to pay some hefty poaching fines along with waste of a game animal. The way we caught the man is by being smart and patient. Know one ever questioned him knowing he had shot the deer after it didn't show up after a few hunts. We all kept quiet but knew at some point that deer would be hanging in his house. Somehow we came to find out he was getting a divorce and selling his house. Mind you, his home is in Boise, Idaho so it took some planning. Our lease head hired a PI to fly to Boise and act like he was interested in buying the house. The second he walked in the door the buck was hanging on his fire place. That was a great phone call knowing this man was in serious trouble for being greedy. A few days later, 3 federal game wardens knocked on his door and confiscated the mount. Some have asked what was it that he did wrong and for one our group put the deer off limits because we thought he was 5.5. The legal matters he is facing is poaching by not tagging the deer, waste of game animal, and crossing state lines with the animal. The emails surfaced after we knew the deer was on the wall. This guy thought he was good friends with a fishing guide, but the guide was also good friends with one of our hunters. He emailed over the documents that pretty much detailed how everything went down in a bragging kind of manner. If you hunt with arrogant pricks, either find a new lease or kick them off.

Even being low fence, some deer are more tame than others. He came out every hunt at the same blind for three years. All the hunters went home on Christmas Eve, and this guy stayed all season every season. He left a note saying his wife had broke her ankle and he would be back later in the season. One guy stated that this guy wouldnt have left if his wife had broke her neck. The fishy note sent me to the blind and after two hunts I knew the buck was dead. He even confessed to the game wardens that he cut the deer up into smaller pieces and placed them around the pasture so he would be eaten quickly. Some people in this world are sick and big deer make them even crazier. This guy was a retired vet that graduated from A&M. He was a wolf in sheep's skin.

It was easy because he never came back down to the ranch after that. He called after Christmas and said he wasn't returning bc he and his wife were getting a divorce. Everybody wanted to call him out, beat him, etc. but this result was much better. He's paying a hefty price for a deer he only has pictures of

Sounds like they were all smart guys and knew exactly what happened, but not smart enough to remove the troubled hunter from the lease to begin with. SMH

Dang...what a dick...

He was older than that. The pic of him at 4 was from 2012

Did the article say what year he was killed?

I tend to agree. Once you go outside what you have permission for you become a trespasser and its poaching. Shooting an old looking 4.5 year old when only 5.5 year olds are allowed should be given a break but here I got the impression that the guy was shown a picture of that particular deer and told it was off limits as they wanted it to breed as long as possible but shot it anyway.

Indeed kk66. If pics & information of this buck were circulated among members, & they were told not to shoot him, & this man did anyway, he's a prick & guilty. The fact of what he did with the body parts shows that he knew he done wrong.

I bet this has opened a lot of deer lease hunters eyes.

Put a clause in your lease 4 1/2 year old min. or you're poaching.... 10 point minimum or you're poaching.... 18" spread min. or you're poaching..... Now that's an enforcement policy with some bit.

I might consider a Deer Lease again....

I can see the attorney ads now.... You have a lease hunter who shot a protected deer.... Call 1-800-deer-poacher

I don't think the logic would hold sand in court. For instance, loan your vehicle to someone that doesn't return it, good luck finding a DA in Texas that will even file a case, let alone win it. The fact you gave permission will be what they tell you.

Loaning your car to someone and not returning versus I never gave him the keys nor ever gave him permission to ever drive my car.... two different stories. One is theft

I never gave him permission to harvest a 8 point buck. He even signed a contract agreeing to such.

Hey it was just a comment. Stealing is stealing, breaking the rules is breaking the rules. No gray areas

The issue that made it illegal was the non/improper tagging, not the lease rules. The Lacey Act violations stem from that also because the deer crossed state lines.

Some of y'all are letting the word "poaching" throw you. That can cover a lot of territory and is not really a legal term of art - just a description of what could be various violations.

(The issue that made it illegal was the non/improper tagging, not the lease rules.) Killing a deer that you agreed or signed a contract not to could be a civil issue but not one that you would most likely win in a court battle. How many hunters could you bring in and put on the stand that say something like, "I was watching a buck and then it went behind a bush and when it steped out on the other side I shot it, but when I walked up to the buck, it was a different deer." My killing of the wrong buck, (the one I said I would not), was just an accident.

Accidents are not accepted on a Lease of that Caliber...
If you are gonna play with the Big Boys, you need to be able to pay attention and color within the lines

Yes sir Sniper but if the civil case was a trial by jury most people wouldn't understand the gravity of the situation like a hunter would.

agree - to me, accidents can happen on any lease - deer steps out that has never been seen before and hunter estimates his age at 6 but turns out it is 4 or 5. Bad move but not necessarily intentional.

That is a far cry from a deer that is known through pictures and sightings and is placed on do not kill list but a hunter shoots him anyway. That is intentional. We had that happen a few years back and that gentleman is no longer on our lease.

Especially, if the defense could produce witness after witness after witness, who said, "I shot a buck by mistake and nothing happened to me....after all, it was just a mistake."

I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't take the time to read through all 8 pages so this might have been cleared up already..

If a landowner leases out his property to hunters with conditions signed in a contract such as "no one can shoot Superbuck", and this guy shoots Superbuck.. Wouldn't that be violating their lease contract, and therefore make the accused a poacher? I would imagine once the contract is violated, he is no longer hunting legally on that private property, and is therefore poaching. Surely someone with more legal knowledge than me can or has already spoken to this?

No. Only taking a deer illegally makes a poacher. A contract is an agreement, not a law. Breaching a contract is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Exactly. This particular ranch is not your run of the mill shoot em up lease. Pay big $$ and play by the rules or else. Reading some comments here remind me why I don't lease hunt anymore. "I paid my money. Hey look, a deer! - boom!".

The guy apparently cut the deer into pieces and scattered it around and then didn't properly tag it with the MLD tag. Poaching or not, those are big game violations.

That is a far cry from a deer that is known through pictures and sightings and is placed on do not kill list but a hunter shoots him anyway. That is intentional. We had that happen a few years back and that gentleman is no longer on our lease.[/quote]

Good point, but you did not or did you file a civil suit and of course there was no poaching to be prosecuted.

We would not be talking about this and the GW would not be involved and the man would still have his deer head, if he had filled out the form at the ranch and just said,"My bad...shot by mistake." He would not be on the lease anymore I'm sure, but he also would not be having any legal problems.

I just wonder if the ranch owner will pursue a civil case against the Weiner, after his case with the State of Texas is closed? Not to recoup the value of the buck, but to make an example out of the Weiner. The owner certainly has the wherewithal to do so if he chooses.

Isn't taking a game animal without the consent of the landowner poaching? He did not have consent to shoot this deer, regardless if he had consent to shoot other deer.

Since they were not hunting this buck I doubt there is much of a civil lawsuit to be had. How could they put a damage number on it that a jury would understand? Is just having a buck that could sell for $20K on low fence really worth that much in a court of law for something the state really owns and controls? He will pay restitution to the state. Not sure landowner is owed anything unless the contract states this exact buck via incredible proof between a deer written on a piece of paper is the same one shot. This is different than an outfitted hunt. This was a lease.

This is just a case of not tagging a deer. What an idiot.

He had a lease through the leaseholder/landowner that gave him hunting rights on that 10,000 acres. The lease members agreed to let the buck die of old age. I doubt there was any paperwork or a contract associated with said "gentleman's agreement" and, even if there were, it may not have been enforceable under the law.

The man was charged because he failed to tag the deer, did not keep said deer in edible condition and transported part of the illegally taken deer across state lines. Had he filled out the MLD tag, written it in the harvest log and left the ranch with the deer that day, he would not have been guilty of the illegal taking of a game animal nor in taking an illegally harvested animal across state lines.

He's obviously guilty of being a stinkin' POS, unethical and a liar. Had he just tagged the deer and thumbed his nose at his leasemates, he wouldn't be facing any legal action from the state of Texas. He certainly wouldn't be on the lease any longer and might have to take a few azz whippins from other lease members, but that would be the extent of it.

No.He had a right to be there under the lease to hunt. LO doesn't own the deer. He owns the land.

It was "poaching" because he took the deer illegally without tagging it. Not because of anything the LO said or did.

Depends on what lease agreement said. If your lease agreement doesn't specify exotics.... Guess what can happen....

Tresspassing and poaching are different

He asked about game animals. Exotics are not game animals.

He asked about poaching. As you point out, poaching and trespassing are different. He was not trespassing.

You will be asked to leave said lease with no refund.

We as a jury of his peers are desd lock you honor

I don't think so. Everyone pretty much agrees the guy is a POS. Some just don't understand that violating your lease rules is not against the law and that's not what the man has been charged for. I've been on and run several leases and have always followed the landowner's rules, and our lease member's agreements. And I'm sure that most here do, as well. There's the occasional bad actor and they get weeded out pretty quickly. But they don't get charged with any crimes. Kind of unusual for a guy to have been on such a great lease for so many years and then go bad.

Lease agreement could cause issues depending how it's set up was my point. Just because you have permission to hunt doesn't give you rights to do as you please, hence the exotic part I mention.

Class A misdemeanor can happen quickly per the contract

I am not following what you have in mind since you are not spelling it out.

A contract is a civil document reflecting an agreement between one or more parties. It does not create criminal liability. It may serve as evidence or lack thereof in a trespassing case, but the contract itself does not affect the definition of trespass under criminal law.

maybe he has done similar in previous years but just not caught??? maybe the going bad part didn't just happen with this instance

Not tresspassing NP... Hunting with out consent of the landowner and procession with out landowner consent what I was angling at.

^^^ For anyone late to this thread, this sums it up nicely.

I agree he is a scum bucket. PERIOD. However there has been a lot of discussion about lease contracts. If he knew prior to going into the season the deer was off limits either by identification and age then he violated the contract and IMO could be ordered to pay restitution. Now I'm obliviously no attorney so I don't know if it's poaching, theft or combinations of unlawful activities. As to the other lease hunters he removed a key part of "their" genetic management plan for which they invest 100,000 a year plus. Thefefore they may are may not be due compensation too.

It appears well drawn deer lease agreements could carry some financial hardships on oops "I thought he was a 10 point. " There is no reason IMO for "I thought I saw a 10th point". Your job as a hunter and a lease member to clearly identify with all intentions to meet all the guidelines or don't pull the trigger.

Numerous times I have seen bucks I could not guarantee they met all the guidelines and came back to camp empty handed but with a story and maybe a picture for evaluation.!

Yes,could be civil liability just as for any breach of contract.

Now, whether unwritten "lease rules" would rise to the level of a contract would be another issue. Would just depend on the facts I guess. Several hurdles to overcome - did this guy agree, what was the consideration received, etc., etc.

His stupidity was in not tagging the deer and wasting the meat. Otherwise, he would still have the deer's head on his wall.

I will say it's always been a sort of strange deal to me how many leases are so expensive, so much work is put into raising big deer, and then when a true monster is grown how often particular deer are put "off limits". Sometimes it seems many leases function more as deer preserves than hunting leases. Of course, that's strictly their business but not something to which I can relate.

I am a managing fool, but I am a hunter first and foremost. I have never and will never hunt a place where I can't shoot the biggest deer I see.

AGREED

They would have lost me with the wishy washy management plan.... the buck would be allowed to live out its natural life as long as it lived, but it was subject to change. They might decide to cash in the chips.

2024 White-tailed Deer: hunt without landowner consent (Class A misdemeanor) Tex. Parks & Wild. Code § 61.022
2025 White-tailed Deer: hunt without landowner consent (state jail felony) Tex. Parks & Wild. Code § 61.022
2026 White-tailed Deer: hunt without landowner consent (felony) Tex. Parks & Wild. Code § 61.022

From TPW. Regardless of whether you have a lease, the landowner can still restrict what game animals are allowed to be killed on his property. If you take an animal he says you cant then you have broken the law. This was put into place because of incidents exactly like this one. As you can see the penalty escalates with each offense. This guy broke all kinds of laws in doing what he did. On top of that he is a complete scumbag for doing it.

NP, a contract explicitly extends consent and restricts it. The law states that a person cannot take a game animal without consent. If the contract explicitly excluded a particular animal then the taking of that animal would be a criminal matter, not just civil. Like I said earlier, it's going to boil down to consent. Seems pretty clear that this hunter did not have consent and he knew it. Either way, he'll get nailed for not properly tagging the deer and the rest is moot.

Which brings up a whole other issue...This is precisely why so many landowners don't want to deal with the drama created by hunters. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.

PS: Your previous observation that the landowner doesn't own the deer. True, but he owns the ground that the deer lives on and he can institute any rules he wants for those that want to access his land to hunt deer. And that means he can restrict consent on certain animals.

Mike-

How many cases have you seen where someone who was hunting with a right to be on the property and where everything else was legal - killed a deer and was charged with a crime?

Absent the tagging/waste violations, what crime would you charge him with specifically?

this is a very long thread and rightfully so - this guy was on the lease we have now some years back - he did the same thing as he has done now - he is a scum bag hunter that should be banned from hunting - he will lie and cheat to get a deer head to put on his wall. He represents what hunting is not about - forget legal, court, fines, etc. At the end of the day he is a person none of us would ever want to be or be around. SKIP is trash - plain and simple and I would tell him that to his face. How does this guy sleep at night?

Probably not very many if any.

I recommend reading this. This is the best synopsis by one of the hunters without the BS of people interpretting what happened and what was in their contract. Yes, this starts in 2012 but then jumps to Nov 2015. Doubt there is anything anyone sue for and they could careless about money. The state got their man and he can pay some fines and they can move on. Everyone wants to talk about suing around here all the time for some reason.

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310028

Those are not applicable to delineate between specific animals and would not apply to this situation. They are simply the general poaching statutes.

Np,
I haven't and I've never heard of criminal charges coming from such a situation. However, I don't have $10,000/year deer leases around me, much less 200 class B&C deer either.

My point is strictly from a legal definition perspective. The specific statute states "consent". I contend that the hunter did not have consent to shoot that specific deer and he knew it. Therefore, he intentionally and knowingly shot a deer that he knew he did not have consent to shoot. Anyway, I'm sure the legal eagles at TPWD have sorted this all out and filed the appropriate charges with the local DA.

It has been a very interesting read and some good points. While I think most the blanks have been filled in by the additional information about this particular case, the idea of him shooting a buck that is considered "off limits" being criminal is what intrigues me.

I can't imagine someone accidentally shooting a 4yo buck on a lease that only allows 5+yo bucks getting charged criminally. Civilly, yes but not criminally.

I have an easier time seeing a situation, like the OP, where there is one specific deer that is known by the hunters and has been known. Main difference I see between this scenario and the previously mentioned one is that by shooting the specific deer, there is clear intent.

I can see where there would be criminal charges possible if you were allowed on a place to only shoot black buck, but shot a whitetail instead.

I just can't see where it would be black and white like some think it should be. The precedence for making a possible mistake a criminal charge would be very significant IMO, despite the size of the animal taken.

The charges filed will be no/improper tag and wanton waste of meat. Those are the only charges available in this situation. The criminal statutes relating to consent do not apply to delineate between specific animals.

If a man: 1)has a right to be on a given property to hunt (consent) and 2)legally kills an animal (in season, properly tagged, meat handled correctly, etc., etc.) there is no crime.

Perhaps a civil breach of contract matter, but no crime.

So if I pay for a dove lease but shoot a deer, am I off the hook? Had consent to be there, right?

What if I pay for a doe-only lease, but shoot a buck?

Where does consent stop?

What does this have to do with the situation? Those are nothing like what happened. Anyone leasing dove that doesn't write down the the season and animal to be taken in the agreement would be an idiot. If it says dove only in the agreement and you shoot a deer that is an offense as listed in the TPWD code 61.022. If you have a doe lease, then it will say does only in the agreement. If you shot a buck then they could slap you with shooting a resource without landowner consent. These guys had a hunting lease which will say all legal game or omit some if they don't want quail shot or something like that but specific bucks would just be a civil matter if it is stated. If it doesn't list the specific species, you can hunt it period. The deer shot was not protected by any damn legal statute out there since this was a deer lease. A buck is a buck on a hunting lease unless they wrote a very specific rule in there which any case would be a civil matter. We had a rule you pay $500 any buck not 13 inches before TPWD put their law in. If you didn't pay you could be taken to small claims court but it was in the signed document and just a civil matter. Most any screw up results in getting chewed out and asked not to come back. That's about as off the hook as you will get. No one sues for this crap unless is was a paid outfitted hunt with a guide possibly that tells the person not to shoot. And if you did you pay for what the hunt would sell for. If you don't pay, you go to court and be ordered to pay like any service rendered but this was nothing in the same realm as that.

The buck in 2010 was a hoss When he stepped out I'm not sure I would have seen age.

Sad the way it ended.

Yea...

I think TPWD kinda may know what they a are doing


I hope and would bet he loses the shirt off his back

It's a good question. The statutes are not designed to create illegal conduct based on splitting hairs regarding consent to take specific animals or species of animals. The "consent" element goes to the right to be hunting on the property generally - it functions as a delineation between trespassing and not trespassing.

Because of this, I have never seen an arrest made where there was consent to hunt and an animal was legally taken. Faced with an argument that "Yeah, but I did not give permission to hunt THAT animal" , I am certain all or almost all LEOs would deem it a civil dispute and decline to arrest. I am also certain that if any arrest was made under such circumstances the DA would also deem it a civil matter and not file charges, as no crime was committed. (I can envision a violation being charged for dove hunting if the hunters did not have a right to be on the property until deer season but, again, that's a function of the LOs consent for them to be on the property period, not the species they are hunting.)

You can understand why this is so - if it were not so, LOs could have folks arrested almost at will just by stating "Yeah, I gave consent to hunt on my property but not THAT deer or THAT species." It would create a morass of confusion and quickly clog the system.

TPWD did know exactly what they were doing here - they charged him with the tagging and waste of meat violations he committed, not under the general "poaching" statutes under Chapter 61. He is in big trouble, especially since he transported the illegally taken deer across state lines in violation of the Lacey Act. That brings in a whole new range of punishment under the federal system.

http://www.chron.com/sports/outdoors/art...red-1926288.php

That's a great piece of info thanks for sharing. I will be shocked if the felony charges are pursued by the DA because, as the article points out, the statute was not intended for that situation. But I guess anything can happen.

Hope my friend doesn't see that. My 8 grew 3 kickers! He is a forgiving friend though.

Thanks, NP, that's the info I was looking for.

Things like this makes me glad to be on the lease I'm on


Stories like these are reasons why it has taken all the fun out of whitetail hunting for me.

It's a deer. Plain and simple. The issue to me is not so much he failed to tag the deer or even threw away the meat it was he screwed over his buddies and went to great lengths to hide it.

Lol and then txduckman shows an article where they did charge a guy based on no "specific animal" consent. IMO that made the news and received such criticism because it was not proper and it will not ultimately be prosecuted that way.

I have but it was in the exotic side, no idea how it would transpose over to game animal side.

Hence why I mentioned the exotic stuff.

Interesting nonetheless.

Exotics (if they are fenced/contained) are individually owned as the personal property of the LO. I can envision in the proper circumstance the run of the mill theft/destruction of property statutes applying with regard to them as individual animals.

This was LF involving a deer lease and an Elk.

Very educational gentleman.

Based on my experience that would be grounds for gettng kicked off the lease. How do they know it was not tagged since it was mounted before they ever found it and how can they prove he wasted the meat?
How can they confiscate the head based on so many assumptions?

They had emails from him to a buddy where he talked about destroying the carcass and giving other details. They had the MLD log where no tag was ever issued to a deer matching that description, meaning the deer left either with an illegally applied regular license tag, or no tag at all.

Hopefully this is a lesson to lease members of the same caliber. Its a shame to see this deer taken like that. There are a lot of true hunters out there that would have appreciated the buck in a better way.

This guy use to be on the lease I am on now. I spoke to some of the other hunters who were on back then with him and they said they never caught him in the act but had every reason to believe he had also slipped deer off this ranch. They had zero good to say about the guy as a person and as a hunter. Once an amoral person always one I guess - bet he never tries to come back to Texas - hope he spends time in jail

Something like this happened to a friend back about 15-17 yrs ago. He had a hunter on the ranch to shoot a mature management buck. He had a guide with the hunter. A really nice 5x5 with split G2 and G3s walked in and the hunter ask if that was a mature management buck and his guide said "no" he is not old enough and is a 4 yr old. The hunter kept asking and the guide kept saying "no" each time. A few more deer came in and a couple of mature shooter bucks. The guide said there are 2 mature management bucks that you can shoot if you like. If not we can keep hunting. The hunter picked up his rifle and was aiming at the 4yr old buck. His guide kept saying, "do not shoot that buck". The hunter killed the 4 yr old buck. Back at camp the LO ask what happened and he pulled the guide over to the side and got his side of the story. Then asked the hunter for his side. Both stories matched. His dilema was what to do? So finally he told the hunter he would have to pay full price for a trophy. The hunter paid the money and left immediately. The hunter was there to kill what he like on a hunt he paid for in advance, know full well he was shooting whatever he wanted.

was this ranch in McMullen County?

No, in the Hill Country.

Maybe the felony charges won't come about...but they dang should in my opinion. If the LO/LO's agent said "no" then that should have been the end of it IMO

I agree that generally you could not charge someone for shooting a deer that meet the management criteria. But we're not talking about just any deer. We're talking about a specific and unique deer that apparently everyone knew was off limits, yet he was shot anyway.

This is where culpability comes into play. Did he accidentally shoot an off limits deer (mistaken age or score) or did he intentionally shoot an off limits deer, knowing that the deer was off limits? I believe this makes a big difference.

Very good point Mike, we all know this dude is POS, but i think in the end, it would all come down to he said she said, as there was no one there at the time he killed the deer, unless there is evidence in the emails that he sent his "buddy".

Read all 12 pages.. Ready for the bar