THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER, READ IT AGAIN!

I do not believe if you follow the letter spirit and intent of the law... that they can go wherever they want. They have to suspect hunting is occurring. If there is no hunting on their property and the landowner says no I think no stands.

It should be jump on Robert day because you are wrong. It's also called Texas Parks and Wildlife, not Fish and Game. Read the above post by Erich again.

That's nice. That is my brother. He is an educated man, but he isn't a game warden or park officer. All he is going by is his interpretation of the law, just like all the rest of us, and I think its wrong.

well just try and educate the Game Warden on the spot if this scenario ever plays out for ya...I'm sure he'll appreciate it

I am mildly amused at all the legal beagles here.

Out of all the responses, I beleive that Eric's is the closest to be what actually happens in the field.

What the actual laws are - written on paper - should not be considered an absolute.

The reality - to ANYONE who has EXPERIENCE in the matter - is that:

(a) In the field, the law is what the LEO says it is - no matter what is written by the state. Each LEO could have his interpretation on the finer details and fringe areas - and he is going to follow what he is comfortable with, based upon the circumstances are and his understanding. There is a term to refer to anyone who disagrees with that. We call them "defendants".

(b) In the courtroom, the law is what the judge says it is - no matter what is written by the state. Each judge interprets the law, similar to what LEOs do - and are much more likely to align with LEOs than "defendants". There are two terms to describe anyone with argues points of law with judges - one term is "Lawyer" and the other term is "Stupid". (Please note that "Lawyer" and "Stupid" can sometimes can be used interchangably.)

(c) Those who are wrong (lose their argument) also have a term associated with them. We call them "inmates".


So a GW warden, may or may not decide to cross a property line. He may or may not decide to retrieve an animal. But whatever he decides, based upon his experience, knowledge, or comfort level, is going to be what the law is that day.

Anyone who doesn't understand and accept that may find them being referred to as "defendant", "stupid", or "inmate".

Have a nice day.

Does not need a warrent.
See Sec. 12.103.

Good one.

He has to also suspect there maybe a game violation. A wounded deer crossing the fence line does not constitute a game violation or create any suspicion of a game violation.

i think its a bigger deal when you expressly DONT have permission to cross the property line. as in....you've been told not to by the owner. under circumstances where you cannot contact the owner...and no previous contact has been made...there may be some flexibility so long as you've made effort to contact the owner.

tons of truth in what redchevy said before....if you're going to cross a property line where you don't know the owner and are unable to contact him...LEAVE YOUR GUN ON YOUR SIDE OF THE FENCE...do not take it with you. if discovered this is a completely different offense. if you're discovered un-armed...hte most they'll likely do is ask you to leave. at which point you have to abide. also....if the deer is not found relatively quickly on the other side of the fence....say within 100yds....probably best to just call it a loss and go.

i would agree with what humbert said above....the game warden makes the call based on what he knows and feels comfortable with. if you don't know/can't contact the property owner...then contact a warden and proceed as he advises you.

it was my understanding that in a situation where the property owner has already told you that you cannot enter the property..that at that point its a lost animal.

i've only on one occaision tracked a deer across a fence. in this instance....i didn't know the property owner, but the guy i was leasing from did. no prior arrangement had been made and we couldn't get ahold of the guy. my property owner didn't think the other would mind though. so i left my gun on my side of the fence and proceeded. recovered the deer. wasn't a big deal.

i'm not a game warden....but i do read the annual. and i have stayed in a holiday inn express.

exactly, I use to hunt a ranch and a government tracker called the ranch phone and said he was on a fresh cat track and on the publeice road. He was requesting permission to continue tracking. Permission was denied. Even if the GW got access did the lady ahve to surrender the deer?

And a GW can also get his A** in a crack if he does what he really shouldn't have.

"In the field, the law is what the LEO says it is - no matter what is written by the state"

It may be the reality, but does anyone other than me have a problem with this statement?

G/W Don't ask permission. They go where they want to.

And you would be violating the law if you do not have permission from the landowner.

Well said

I guess my only question regarding this portion of the statement is I know they use Game Wardens in certain circumstances to enter homes during drug raids. Because of their ability to enter without a warrant.

No idea how that actually figures in but I know it happens. With that said I guess they can say they are looking for game violations.

Covered earlier on page 9, second post. It does NOT happen because of not needing a warrant.

A GW is informed that a person living in an apartment has an illegal deer. He does not know which apt. it is. He goes into each one without a warrant to look for the deer? B. S.

Again, it's a matter of technically vs reality. Things are rarely black and white and other factors come into play.

Technically, a GW could do this.

But the reality is much different. A doubt is any GW would feel comfortable doing so or that anyone would ever do so. Why?

1. It's a good way to get shot - regardless of the legality.
2. Some lawyer or Judge may interpret that each apartment could be consider a separate property and without more information a reasonable determination of which property to enter could not be determined.
3. Hunting does not typically take place inside an apartment, so suspicion of a crime being committed could not be established.

No GW is going to take those risks. While technically he may have the right, getting shot or risking a judges interpretation of the law is not something a smart GW would want to chance.

Technically vs Reality people.

Even police officers "hot" pursuing a suspect often stop and wait for a warrant before entering a premises. This is because judges in today's world typically look at the whole situation and if the cops COULD wait to obtain a warrant, would rule that they SHOULD HAVE waited.

And this is the way it should be, if you think about. Any benefit of the doubt should go to the suspect. Otherwise, the power of law enforcement can be abused. Only in cases where there was no other way, is the full "technical" power of the LEO upheld.

A GW, faced with a situation to retrieve a wounded should properly take all factors into consideration. I can't see a warden putting his life in jeparody or risking a lawsuit - or even just a bad argument with a land owner-, just to retrieve a damn deer - even though he may have the "technical" right to enter the property. He's likely to tell the hunter anything as an excuse on why he won't do it - because he doesn't owe the hunter any explanation. So "the law" becomes what he says it is. And he certainly isn't there to shag your deer back to you.

Think people.

Laws are not carved in stone. The are written so that there is flexibility in enforcement, based upon good judgement of fine LEOs in the field. I wouldn't want it any other way. And occasionally, every once in a while, some circumstance comes along that causes things to be redefined - but not that often, because the vagueness and flexibility is what makes the system work.

U make too much sense ^^^^^

Yes, kind of scary that common sense has again showed up, now will people listen?

John,

Thanks for the clarification. This is much more in line with my thinking...

"And this is the way it should be, if you think about. Any benefit of the doubt should go to the suspect. Otherwise, the power of law enforcement can be abused. Only in cases where there was no other way, is the full "technical" power of the LEO upheld."

I misunderstood what you were getting at above. I thought you were saying the LEO could do what he wanted, suspect's rights and laws on the book be dam*ed. That's not at all where you're really coming from and I can appreciate that.