^^^^^^^^

The deer are owned by the state. The right to hunt any of them on his property is owned solely by the landowner. He alone dictates the stipulated conditions of anyone he grants the consent to hunt on his property. That can include not only how many but can also specify which one. Deviation from the terms a landowner stipulates when granting consent to hunt his property is taking something the landowner owns (the hunting rights, not the deer) other than what he consented to on his property. At that point without landowner consent it is hunting illegally. Charges both criminal and civil can be filed. Whether the landowner leases out hunting has no bearing on the value of the right to hunt his property that the landowner fully owns. Whether I have any of my property for sale or not has no bearing on its value.

I can tell you that when Uncle Ted's Vid Cam Dude shot a low fence 170+ without permission in Young County our local Game Warden drove immediately to Waco and seized the deer.

Here's the TPWD case on this

"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."


https://www.archerytalk.com/threads...nst-hunter-for-shooting-wrong-de.253225/

I’d say that settles the question.

Also seems like a good example where a lease agreement comes in handy so it's documented and crystal clear.

Understandable. Guided hunt (possibly with consideration exchanged) which creates a contract. Guide was present and verbally/repeatedly 'rescinded' permission (presumably based on certain conditions and restrictions) the land owner or agent can set....but needs to be previously conveyed and agreed upon.

Individual was filed on and arrested but we are not told the outcome of the charge. Sounds as if the individual went though the 'arrest' process alright though.

IF successfully convicted....this would certainly establish Case Law.

The OP asked if it was illegal to kill more deer than a landowner consented to him killing. TPWD statute states that it is in fact illegal to kill a deer without landowner consent. It's not that complicated.

Flint, GW, stated in the first post the land owner stipulated his consent to kill one buck and one doe. They clearly had an agreement. The hunter disregarded what the landowner consented to and killed 3 does and two bucks. He went on to ask if they were taken illegally or was it ok since it was within the bag limits of that county. The answer is yes. One of the bucks and two of the does were killed without the land owners consent and thus were taken illegally.

Landowner or agent without question can set limits. A wildlife resource taken without 'express' permission is also against game laws. I am not challenging either of those things. But I see a lot of 'holes' in this hypothetical case.

Alleged offender clearly had permission to 'hunt' on the property and the game to be hunted were Whitetail deer. That much is not in dispute.

The question becomes whether or not it was understood and AGREED upon that there was a limit to be observed. A verbal agreement is binding in Texas, though it
might be hard to prove without a witness or other means to substantiate it.

It doesn't make sense to me that a person would deliberately take THREE more animals than agreed upon if that person understood and agreed to a lesser bag limit, but maybe so.

Setting limits (bag limits or sex of animal) I agree....creates an 'implied' limit on the permission given by the landowner. But if not agreed upon in advance....(and we are not told if that is so), then neither party has protection. A Landowner could just as easily give permission to kill one deer, then call the Authorities when the hunter returns with said animal and claim he never gave 'permission'. Now the hapless hunter...if he can not prove otherwise is likely to be charged with poaching if he GW is not able to sort it all out.

Without more information....I don't think we can say this hypothetical 'hunt' is any way cut and dried from a criminal stand point.

With respect to a Civil Suit I don't see that claim making it to court on any other grounds than 'damages'.

This is where it makes a difference whether the landowner received 'consideration' for the right to hunt (thus creating a contract) OR derived an income by allowing paying customers to enter his land and then claim that the now lesser animal resource caused him damages by depriving him of animals for others to hunt. Though he doesn't actually own the animals.

In THIS particular case....I can't see the State taking it up (as presented) and can see any decent lawyer shooting a lot of holes in it.

As for some of the supposed Case Law cited.....we don't have the outcome of those charges, just the arrest sequence.

Bottom line: Make CERTAIN everyone understands and agrees with any policies, limits, restrictions. Best to get it in writing or at least have a witness (or recording) of any verbal agreements.

TO ME: BTW, I’m neither a cop, GW , judge or lawyer.

It’s a business transaction for a certain resource. In a simple situation, it is a civil matter.

But, the hunter did not contract or pay for what he did. Did he do something illegal and kill something outside the agreement? Yep, he did. Is that a criminal matter? It would be if he took something that he didn’t pay for at a bank, grocery store or car lot.

Seems some guys are trying to justify poaching a deer without permission.
Yes the state may hold the deer in trust for residents of the state but the landowner owns his land and can determine what activities are allowed including limits on hunting.
I would love for one of you arguing the opposite to go shoot a buck without permission to do so, tell us how that goes.
Permission for one deer does not equal permission for whatever you want to shoot.

This is my angle as well based on very limited information. Also if 'permission' were clearly understood and then violated. There seems to be certain key elements missing. I have NO doubt....that if presented properly, a Game Warden could be moved to make an arrest. How it would turn out in court could be quite another matter.

There are slightly different scenarios where I would readily agree with some of the readership here.....that it is pretty much cut and dried. Just not this one.

IMO this not an 'Ignorance of the law' deal which would default to the State. I believe it leans more to the Civil side and since we have no knowledge of 'consideration' being exchanged...there can be no legally binding 'contract'. Without a contract....we can't have a breach of contract. So I don't see how the Land Owner could successfully claim damages as recourse.

Its a state jail felony, I have a co-worker who knows the guy with Ted Nugent that got busted.

IF the event (real or imagined) were to take place exactly as described (hunter IGNORED) the clear instructions of the Land Owner and willingly and knowingly took more deer than were agreed upon, then yes. A good criminal case could be brought. I just have a really hard time imagining anyone would actually do that. (take 3 more deer than agreed upon)

I think a much more likely scenario would be poor communication or a misunderstanding (I.E. hunter thought he had permission to hunt deer on property...and that was that). If charges were brought in that kind of case an arrest could certainly be made but the State would have to prove Mens Rea.

Mens Rea
State must provide evidence that appellant possessed the appropriate mens rea to commit the offense alleged. The crime of taking wildlife resources without the consent of the landowner under section 61.022 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code requires a culpable mental state. Harrison v. State, 76 S.W.3d 537, 541 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.); see Tex. Parks Wild. Code Ann. 61.022(a).

Hunting is not, by its nature, a criminal act, and section 61.022 does not prohibit any specific result. Harrison, 76 S.W.3d at 541. This Court has previously stated: "What makes hunting or possessing a wildlife resource a criminal act under section 61.022 is a circumstance; that it is done without the landowner's consent."
As shown in Harrison, establishing the required culpable mental state when dealing with such cases involves determining whether a person has consent from the landowner or landowner's agent and knows whether he has such consent.

Not breaking the law
But is being a DB hunter that gives hunters bad names with landowners.
My thought on it is you know the rules when you get on........FOLLOW THEM.

^^^^^^

Absolutely!

Whether you are on a lease, a paid guided hunt or just hunting by invitation....make SURE you understand the rules, regulation and restrictions. And don't break any of them.