Question generated from another post?

In another post a hunter went on a pay hunt and shot a buck. After recovery he was told the buck scored to much and he would have to pay more. Several posters are suggesting he tell them to keep the deer and he can keep his money or they can stick to the pre agreed price because the guide said it was an acceptable deer to shoot.

What are the legal concerns about that? You shot a deer and I would think by law you are still bound to tag it and not waste the game, so you cant just leave it if the hunter/outfitter do not agree?

Guide's responsibility to tell him the correct deer to shoot. Hunter could have called the game warden and get what he advised as far as being legal tagging wise. But, guide is there for a reason and if he did not know what he was doing, that is the outfitter's problem. Just my take.

Hunter has to tag the deer he shot. Period. Everything after that depends on the wording of the contract signed.

That's what I was thinking he would have to tag it (assuming not MLD). So then if they couldn't agree on a price what would happen? Deer is tagged as his if they cant agree on fee, then what he has to either leave it and potentially waste game? or try to take it with him, which may be interpreted as theft as he hasn't made full payment in the owners eyes?

Very simple. He has to tag the deer. If they don't settle with him for the 2k that was agreed upon and refuse to let him leave with the buck that's not a wasted game violation on him. It will be on the outfitter if they let it waste. From that point forward it's a civil matter decided in the court or through arbitration.

I would say you still have to tag the animal however I would not blame anyone who said "keep the deer" That is on the guide for telling him to shoot the wrong deer, not the hunter

Can o worms!

Agreed! And the fact that this place would take the stance they have after their guide told him to shoot it is a bunch of poop! I think the outfit should be identified so others can avoid doing business with them.

They were identified, and they told their side of the story. I think it was pretty clear that the OP was full of it, and the outfitter did nothing wrong.

In this particular case, anyway.

I read the thread but I don't like the part about "probably". An attorney would chew that up. I would just get the dude out of there. Missed a buck at 80 and 100 yards??? Seriously...

THat's not the way I saw it.

it was definitely different than the OP side of the story, but there were still uncertainties about what the deer would cost.

smart [censored] comments about darting a deer and scoring them on the ground are irrelevant. When you outfit hunts, and a customer asks how big a deer is, you provide the score. If you're wrong, you're wrong, but you say what it is, and what it will cost. "probably's" and "maybes" just leave room for error and misunderstandings.

But isn't there something to say about him having 2 bucks to choose from 1 being an 8 that the guide told him was at the large end of being a management and then there was a 10 point that was probably bigger than what he wanted to shoot.

Was this poor language maybe. But it's much different than saying, it's probably a management. The guide said it's probably bigger than what you want.

So the guy had 2 options. 1) an 8 that he was told was a big management or 2) a 10 that was probably not a management.

He shot the one that was probably not a management and it turned out it was not a management.

I agree. Glad to hear from the outfitter. I don't understand why they locked that thread.

It really wasn’t intended to be smart - a**. Was simply addressing the fact that how else are you going to get beyond “probably” when it comes to scoring a deer on the hoof? But I’ll admit I don’t know all the customs and protocols on such a hunt - and never will because it’s not my bag.
One reason: all the silly crap you get into when hunting becomes like shopping for groceries at the store - except you’re just guessing if that bag of sugar on the shelf has 4 1/2 or 5 lbs in it.

Always been THF policy, Both sides said thier peice. The consumer has 10 positive reviews to one negative (that was refuted) to sort through and make an educated opinion . He said she said end of the day.

Not as cut and dry as an outfitter scam selling Javi hunts in Refugio,

The Outfitter's account of the hunt is in my belief the truth and his reputation on this forum should remain as it has been with nothing but complements and good times by his hunters. We have all had that one hunter that you have gone above and beyond for to make their hunt very special and sometimes there's just no positive result.

It would seem to work in the outfitters advantage to have a client fill out a form with all the particulars explained in black and white, and have the client sign the agreement with witnesses.
I think any outfitter who doesn't cover his rear by doing that should have to eat the mistake of the hunter or guide.

I've never been on one of these hunts so I don't know how other outfits work.

But I do know that if a guide tells me a deer is probably bigger and will cost more than I am prepared to pay, I'm not shooting. If the events occurred exactly as the outfitter stated, the hunter knew that if the deer scored higher he would have to pay more. If he wasn't prepared to pay more, he should not have shot.

Just like if I'm hunting in an AR county and I see a buck that is "probably" legal, I'm not shooting.

I've always been told you typically hear two sides to a story and then the truth lies somewhere in between. I don't think it is cut and dry. It is possible the guide messed up and is trying to protect himself. Remember the owner is only going off of what he was told. If the guide gives a hunter the green light on a management buck and it turns out to be a trophy, he just cost the owner a good bit of money. Was the guide apologetic as the client said? If so why would he have to apologize if things went down as the outfitter said they did?

At the same time the OP left out a ton of details and pretty much just agreed with others' assumptions and left many questions unanswered.

We will never know for sure exactly how things went down.

I understand the problem with probably, but life is not made of absolutes. He told him the deer was probably bigger than a management buck and he asked how much and the guide said "probably" $3,000. The guy knew good and well it was going to cost him more than the management buck hunt he was there for.

The hunter that pulls the trigger and takes the animal is responsible for the animal, period. If said animal is required to have a standard license tag affixed to it, it must be done by the hunter who killed the animal immediately upon recovery. Even under the MLDP program, the hunter that killed the animal is required to immediately fill out the tag or take it to a tagging station. No one made the guy pull the trigger; the deer is ultimately his responsibility as are the consequences of his actions.

quoted wrong post.

I'm not saying the other side of the story didn't clear up a lot, I'm simply stating that as someone who has guided hunts, and been in this situation, when the score is unknown, it's on the ranch to make it known before the trigger is pulled. You just have to be very very clear, all the time or problems arise..

I've been wrong on score too, and believe me, you take a lot of [censored] for it from the ranch owner, but most of it is just ribbing because it's not expected that everyone is right 100% of the time. But as a general aspect of customer service, you make sure the guy shooting knows exactly what's going to happen before the trigger is pulled.

if someone asked me "how much bigger is that deer", My answer would be "that deer is NOT in the 130's, he IS in the 140's, and it IS going to be another $1500 if you want to shoot him. If everything was clear, then why would that guy come on here raising hell about it? even if he is wrong, he obviously didn't understand what was going on.

Where is it? I’d like to read it for myself

So if you tagged that deer, didn't pay the extra they demanded and they wouldn't let you leave with the deer, is that not then theft on their part?

Doesn't it cease to be the state's property and start being your property at the moment of tagging?

Good question!

And old one I remembered.
https://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20051121f

If the guide says no, he means NO! On Nov. 8, a Schleicher County Game Warden received a call from a landowner agent informing him that one of his hunting clients had taken a white-tailed buck without consent. Upon investigation it was determined the out-of-state hunter was being guided by the agent and wanted to shoot a buck they had seen. The guide opposed and told him repeatedly not to shoot the deer because it was not a mature buck. The hunter stated he did not care and he was going to shoot it anyway. When interviewed about the incident, the hunter stated he did not know why he shot the deer and offered to pay for it. The landowner was adamant about charges being filed, so the county attorney was contacted and the case reviewed. State jail felony charges of take wildlife resource, white-tailed deer, without consent of the landowner were filed. The subject was arrested, bond set, and placed in jail. Restitution on the 120-class buck is also pending.

He wanted a 120 class deer that badly? Wow!! He MUST be from another state!!!!! Haha

Landowner obviously knew the county attorney on that one.

I think we know where hunts now. Or where he will be hunting.

Wouldn't doubt that NP, but I would bet the guide falls under the " Agent of the LO" so in effect the hunter hunted without permission, at least for that particular buck.

Being charged with a state jail felony puts him on the NICS list too. Stupidity in motion.

I just hope that Seminolewind realizes that most hunters spend a couple grand or more a year for many years and never get a chance at a 140 class deer. Even at the price he paid it was a bargain if you look at it this way?

No one is gona ever know the truth... just two guys not telling the 100% truth to sway an opinion.. bicker all yall want it sounds like a case with no witnesses.