I would love to know your qualifications about your extensive knowledge of the laws of the state of Texas and the enforcement of them. Please indulge us.

My thoughts

He was under no obligation to retrieve the deer immediately after shooting it. Often waiting is the prudent move. So not having a light that works isn't a requirement.

He also DID tag it immediately upon his grandson returning with the deer. He couldn't be expected to have the tag filled out before the deer was retrieved.

It had to be obvious to the Game Warden that he wasn't planning on not tagging the deer if he was filling out the tag when he arrived.

All that said, the OP shouldn't have been too bent out of shape with the GW being a little pissy if he just gave him a warning.

JR

Binary, you see things in a very black and white way, all these holier than thou folks chastising a poor fellow hunter.

And yet, you come on here and start chastising the chastisers, and chastising laws that have been around for decades...doesn't that make you holier than the thou of thou, what should we call that the holiest of holies, or just full of holes?

As mentioned above, the irony is palpable. I really hope you made your post tongue in cheek because you sir are Holier than the Holy grail...

Based on his anti-government comment, I've chalked him off as a typical keyboard commando guy, who probably has zero knowledge or experience about Texas Game Wardens, and why they play such a necessary roll in the protection of the natural resources of Texas.

You can just call me the Pope son ... now kiss the ring and move on like a good little lemming.



Oh I don't know... does over a decade of providing legal services qualify in your book? Long before I moved into business/corporate law, I worked for the largest criminal defense firm in the city I was living in (happened to be the largest in the state) ... there is literally nothing I haven't seen when it comes to people breaking the law.... here's the thing, 99% of all clients that walked through the door were guilty as sin. The real question is, guilty of what? Guilty of some dumb law passed to help the state raise revenue? Please, the government has spent the better part of the last century pecking away at our liberties with new laws and people like you just bend over and take it with a smile and then preach about how it's necessary for yada yada yada. The criminal justice system is big business like no other, a 100+ billion dollar a year machine (nationwide). A country founded on liberty, with only 4% of the worlds population, and we got 25% of the worlds prison population.

So, do I know a little something about the laws of the US and the great state of TX? lol...maybe just a tad lol ... hell, I helped draft some of them (in multiple states).

But look, if you want to believe that every rule society is forced to follow, whether it's a law about hunting or anything else, is awesome and necessary, that's all you man - have at it. I prefer to see things as they really are and a dumb law is a dumb law... and the tagging law is dumb. I'll keep tagging deer just like the law says, because I'm a law abiding citizen - but that doesn't make it any less dumb. And stop associating my views on the system with individuals that work for the system like GWs/LEOs - most of those guys are great and just doing a job - it's not their fault they have to enforce dumb laws sometimes.

If we shouldn’t have to tag them immediately, then when?

So let me get this straight, you're saying that just because you think a law is dumb, you should still follow it...?

I'm not real smart as you obviously are, writing these laws and then defending criminals that break them but it sounds like to me that 99% of the replies here say that DH should have followed the rules or taken the lumps he was due.

It's ok for you to say the same thing as everyone else since you're the big city lawyer, but any other peon saying the same thing is holier than thou.

Got it...

You are a walking talking contradiction

Now there's a conversation worth having.

Personally, I think as long as you are in the vicinity of the deer, filling out the log itself is more than adequate. The separate physical tag that has to be attached to the deer is pointless unless you are leaving the deer somewhere, like a processor.

But if a physical tag on the deer is going to be required - then it should be a reasonable standard. This nonsense about having to tag it before you field dress it or move it or skin/quarter it is just silly. There is just no good reason for it. If the log is filled out, it's obvious the person isn't trying to get away with a deer without it counting towards their limit. Which is the whole point right? We want make sure everyone only takes a certain number of deer, so we give them limited tags and make them use them. The sole purpose of these small procedural violations is revenue generation.




No you don't have it straight at all, that's not even "kind of" what I said. Put the meth pipe down, walk away, come back in an hour and read it all again, then try again.




Well, I've only worked on a hand full of bills, all involving topics of interest. And I don't defend "criminals" anymore, that was a long time ago that I worked criminal defense. Was overall, easy and boring work but I didn't like the clientele. I'm a business/corporate lawyer these days and have been for ages, work is much more fun (and much more complex).

Nope, not even kind of

Ray Wylie Hubbard once said " the problem with irony is that not everyone gets it"

The fact that you think this:


means the same thing as this:



Makes you more of a Ding Dong than a Dink Dodger :P Thanks for playing though.

Did you just quote some nobody musician? LOL Good Lord....

Makes sense. I do agree with the part about revenue generation, in general.

Keep in mind, Texas didn’t always have the log on the license. I’m sure the tagging immediately law preceded it. It may seem redundant, but I guess nobody felt the need to remove it from the books.

You shot a buck that ran off. On the way back to camp to get a flashlight you meet your grandson who has a light. You go on to camp and hang out while your grandson alone goes to your stand to track a deer that ran off, find the deer, by himself load up the deer, then drive back to the cabin with it. Is that the way I read this?

Most, but certainly not all GW’s have good sense. Take the new law re license on phone as versus paper. There areas on my land where I get no signal. And yet, if I shoot a deer there and move it to another area, I’m breaking the law.

Pretty much the way I took it.

Gosh I am honored to be a member of a group that breaks through the BS and recognizes what's right. Getting a warning when you break the law and then complaining about it publicly shows a complete lack of gratitude. These guys confront armed nut cases daily and still show understand and compassion. Thank you GW for being a decent guy!!!!

Game warden walks up and most likely seen the untagged buck, walks through the door and finds grand paw scrambling to fill out a tag. So is grand pa filling out the tag because it's the law or is he doing it because he saw the game warden had showed up. As you pointed out there was plenty of time to tag that buck and grand pa chose to use none of it. Wouldn't be the first or the last time somebody has tried to keep from burning a tag. So is the warden to believe what he see's or or believe what he's told? My experience with Law Enforcement was limited to about 5 1/2 years and started back in the early 90. Our SO was very short staffed and the Sheriff told his deputies to find somebody to ride with them on the weekends and my buddy chose me (There's allot more to that part of the story). We worked 8:00 PM to around 4:00 pm Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. Since we worked the county we also worked with the PD, DPS and the Game Warden. As I've said before I am not nor have I ever been a Peace Officer but I was lucky and honored to have experienced what they do on a daily basis. One of the first things I learned when questioning someone suspected of a crime was how agitated and defensive some become. Also noted was how the mad/agitated ones would put on quite a show before finally admitting that they may have committed a violation. Were I a Game Warden and walked into grand pa's camp and see an untagged buck hanging he's going to have to convince me that what I'm seeing isn't true. He's going to have a really hard time if he starts the conversation being arrogant, bitter and angry. Another noted observation when talking to suspect's. about 90+ percent of the time they're being less than truthful. Hence the 90% rule, If they're lips are moving they're lying.

That was my thought.

Just a little story to go with this one. We got a call about a suspicious vehicle in the nth east part of the county. We find a vehicle matching the description and start to follow it, sure enough he manages to run a stop sign and we lit him up. Before we can even get to the vehicle he's already mad and talking smack, get him to the front of the patrol car and he makes that famous comment ""Don't you have anything better to do?"". My buddy looked him in the eyes and calmly said "" No Sir! It's been a slow day so I plan to make the most out of this stop.

I got a feeling there is more to the story and it probably would reveal some more lack of judgement

Problem with some people is they have low scruples to begin with, others are lazy and figure no big deal. There is probably a progression where they probably decide they only need to follow the law just enough to stay out of trouble Others buy land and feel entitled that it's my land and I can do as I please regardless of the laws, then there are also the ones that recently come into money either work or inheritance and become really arrogant and think they are above the law.

I believe about 75% follow the letter of the law completely, another 15% just make minor mistakes in judgement, 7% our arrogant opportunist that will break the law for their own selfish reasons and the other 3% are just flat outlaws who poach with no regard for law or other peoples property or well being,

You might be confused on a couple of points. There IS a new law that allows one to provide photographic proof of license in lieu of having it physically on your person, however...it only pertains to instances when a TAG is not required. In the case of deer hunting a tag would be required... so you would need to have the license with you.

Note: You would not need cell phone service to access the photos on your phone, so you are good there.

There are two sides to every story. I don't know the op from adam, but I can definitely see a potential other side. You see him being a lazy pos, I see him as having a grandson that was raised right. As a teen in the same position I would have told my Opie, God rest his soul, to get back to camp get a cup of coffee and I'd have his deer there in a jiffy.

That is a great point only if the OP has health issues? If he did have health issues but healthy enough to hunt, he could have at least followed or gotten in the truck with his grandson and rode with him and filled his tag out in the truck and had his grandson put it on the deer where it laid.

Yeah maybe, or maybe he is just 80 years old. My old man is only in his 50's and he hasn't loaded or gutted or tracked or skinned... you get the picture... a deer or fish he got when my brother I are with him since I was 10 or 12 years old and he is in fine health. I figure I owe a lot to him may as well do as much as I can.

Plain and simple a lot of yal don't like the op and your letting it turn you into a bunch of bickering negative Nancie's.

OK. So can you see any reason for him to become belligerent and angered by the visit? Can you see any reason for him to still be angry and belligerent about it two years later? His actions and his alone created the whole situation, had he turned around when he met his grandson and went and retrieved and tagged the deer this would have been a non story. And like you said there is two sides to every story, this is only one side might surprise you what the other has to say.

First question I'd ask the Warden is what was his reason for going to that particular camp? Was he dispatched there, was he already in the area, did he see something, hear something? Another good question would be what time all this took place?