That got me to thinking of an interesting question. This is in regards to the Trusting People Has Ended thread. Assuming this is a non-paid for hunt and the licensed guest shot and tagged the native deer, who would have legal possession of the animal? Would it be the landowner or hunter?

I'm curious how the law would interpret.

Isn't the person who tagged the deer, then that person would need to do a wildlife transfer?

Yes, yes we all know you could just rip the tag off and put your on it.

Deer are not a personal property, they are state property. The person who lawfully shot the deer and tagged it is the "proud" recipient of the state's deer. HF, LF, it doesn't matter, the deer is not the landowners and the hunter that shot the deer would have legal recourse if the landowner stole the deer from the hunter. Not saying it would escalate that far, but it is just the way it is.

This applies for Texas only, as other states have different rules with regard to HF places.

only if the hunter has expressed permission from LO to shoot that deer or exotic. I haven't read other thread. But there is recourse for shooting non allowed deer or exotics

Yep, it belongs to the kid, and according to the thread the landowner wouldn't try to take it away...

You would be 100% correct, the thought never entered my mind so let’s not drag me into the hypothetical equation guys. I offered to pay to have it mounted for him.

As far as the original question here goes, I would say the shooter owned the deer after it was shot unless they were trespassing which in this case they weren’t and had permission to be hunting. I could be wrong but who knows, I know for a fact I won’t ever find out and I’ll never put myself in that situation again.

How ambiguous is your lease agreement? Is the total harvest defined per hunter, sex, age size? is there Guest policy?

It can get tricky if ambiguous.

I don’t have a lease agreement

I went back and read. If you had called GW and he asked if they had permission to shot that 12 pt and they said “no only an 8pt.” They could of lost the deer and you may of had civil recourse, as LO

If they said you gave them permission and you had no documentation other wise, might still be able for trespass. Obviously not that you would of taken it that far.

Same thing as guided hunts, you pay for a management deer but shoot a 200”… little to no chance you are leaving that ranch with that deer at the previous terms

I’m no lawyer but I don’t think TPWD would do anything. The man was not trespassing and killed a legal deer owned by the state of Texas, not the king. The lessor may be able to do something in civil court, but I don’t believe any laws were broken. It’s just a deer, I’d get over it and go on with my life. If it had been one of my cows that would be a whole different story.

I would have taken the deer. If it got real shi**y then give it back. Make it hard on them. What happened was not right.

Thanks Bobo. I was just curious about legal possession of game in a hypothetical situation and the event in the post was a perfect example.

It comes down to legal take. Essentially just because game animals are held in public trust doesn’t give you the right to processions if it wasn’t legally taken. On private land legal take is by specific permission.

I’ve posted the statutes before, I do remember that the exotic language is a lot stronger though

No way questioning your unfortunate situation. It just happed to be an example.

It depends, I’d be pretty red azzed over what happened from the earlier thread

If the son was young, he’d own but if he was 17/18, I may own it…he can learn the hard way daddy is a retard

I’d be willing to piss off dad and son and tag myself deer if it were big enough and the one I specifically said not to shoot was shot

But hey, that’s me

This was only a question related to legal possession and ownership of a dead game animal.

If you remember the knucklehead running illegal hunts on my buddies place.a.few years ago. The guys that paid for hunts unknowingly paid for illegal hunts got to keep their deer. It would have been a civil matter in that case to try and get them back as they charged the guy running illegal hunts with a ton of charges

But there was a situation further back with an outfitter out west and the client shot a deer the outfitter said don't shoot. They took that deer and charged the hunter with taking game without landowners permission. But that was a paid hunt and the landowners agent was present when it was shot so different situation as well. The hunter thought he could just pay for the deer but didn't work out that way.

I would think in this situation the hunter aka kid is entitled to the deer and they would have to be charged with a crime in order for them to not be able to keep their deer. Then the LO could attempt civil charges for their loss but hard to argue that since they don't sell hunts so no loss of income. Can't see GW doing anything so the LO gets to chew the friend out and ask for the tenders and jerky. And a nice bottle of bourbon.

I would think if the deer was poached....meaning that the hunter did not have permission then it was harvested illegally and a game warden would be involved and illegally harvested game would revert to the state and their discretion as to how it was handled after that. they may award it back to the property owner or maybe something else.

since the deer was legally killed and the hunters had owner permission....just the wrong deer....i'd think the deer belongs to the hunting license holder. Landowner could maybe make a stink and demand that the deer be given back...but i don't see the point in this. The point is not the possession of the deer i don't think but more so that they didn't want that one killed. Once he's dead you can't undo that....may as well let the kid keep him...may not ever invite him back, but may as well let him keep him. especially since its a kid. i guess unless it was just some exceptional trophy where someone would really want to retain the head. this sounds like it was a nice deer for sure but more of a "younger" buck that just wasn't intended to be harvested yet.

you got to be real stupid to screw up a free hunting invitation on a nice place by not going out of your way to follow the rules. i've always been exceptionally keen to landowner rules whether it was a free hunt or not. Whether i would get to go back again or not i've always been thankful for any and every opportunity to hunt and figure the best way you can show it is just be thankful and respectful to landowner requests...and helpful wherever possible.

i'd think even with a paid hunt like described above where you paid a management hunt but shot a trophy...they are probably more interested in collecting the trophy fee than they are in retaining the deer. they'd probably retain the deer until the fee was paid. but ultimately i'd think they want the fee more so than a dispute about who got to keep the animal. i'd think the "hunt and ultimately retention of the animal by the hunter" is where hte value is at. once he's dead....he's just meat and is of much lesser value unless your the hunter.

The person who shoots the animal must be licensed with TPWD in order to do so, and only that person is allowed to tag said animal. That, to me, says the animal would be the property of the hunter as long as they were otherwise legal in killing the critter.

I would like to see the statute on this. I don’t know the ins and outs of game laws that deep but on the surface it doesn’t sound illegal. I could be wrong.

hunt any animal without landowner consent.
kill a desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn, white-tailed deer, or mule deer without landowner consent (Parks and Wildlife Code state jail felony). Upon conviction, hunting and fishing license is automatically revoked.


Exotics is even stronger as their is a procession with out landowner consent also.

A few years ago on a low fence MLD property in liberty county a fellow who was getting off the lease shot a deer on the no shoot board. In the club rules fines were outlined for shooting protected deer. The fellow refused to pay. It went to court. The deer was the property of the shooter who tagged it. The shooter had to pay the fine to the club which was in the thousands of dollars. I don’t hunt there but there were lots of hurt feelings over the incident. Some of the members still get fuzzed up when the topic comes up.

Sounds to me like they made the choice to only have one hunt kid takes deer and one bridge burned!