Here's my question, is a processor bound by law to report a buck under 13" from a county with the antler restrictions. It is an illegal buck and would he report it? Tell you to go somewhere else? or act like he didn't notice? What kind of laws are in effect here? Are processors required to notify GW of such things. If not they should be, in my opinion. If the state wants to get tough and punish offenders this would be one way. Now I know most Outlaws that would kill an illegal buck knowingly would usually process it themselves. But there would be some that wouldn't.

Lora and I haven't had a deer commercially processed in over 5 years. From what I noticed then and what I am hearing from folks now, at most of the busier processors, a GW sorta hangs out there on Sat. and Sun. afternoons/evenings, checking what is brought in. Nothing can be done about the folks like me and Lora that process deer at home. But if I was taking something in to a processor, I would make sure it was legal for where I wrote down it was killed at.

I don't know if there is a law that a processor must report and undersize buck but I know for a fact that they do. We were at a hunting related function when the game warden got a call from a processor. He hung up and said this is the part of his job that he hates the most. Some kid brought in an undersize buck and he had to go write him a ticket. I kinda doubt he hated writing a ticket as he was the type that would write one to his own mother.

The first year of the regulations in our county there was a voluntary check in station. Several illegal deer were brought in but they only gave out warnings.

I wasn't asking for my own sake, I too do my own cuts. I was just wondering if they were legally bound. I agree that GW's hang out and or check the more heavily used processors. Wonder what kind of penalties they could get into for taking an illegal buck. My county just went under the regs this year, and I'm excited to see what it brings. If anything else I think it will alleviate some of the competition for leases in the next season or two after this one. Not many folks willing to spend their money and not see a shooter, but if they were patient it would pay off for em. Guess I'll wait and see. If I don't like it I'll put up my rifle and break out the shotgun and get the dog out of the kennell.

I don't think they are bound to report, but if they are caught with illegal game then they are liable too. No different than a taxidermist caught stuffing an eagle or red wolf. Sort of "Aiding and Abedding" type issue.

Yep The fine in most states is higher for the processor,than the hunter that killed the deer. I not sure about Texas law but in Kansas and SC the processor must report or they will be fined, some have been shut-down due to not reporting. The GW was doing his job ????? If they weren't out there we wouldn't have anything to hunt

That is one thing we are lucky about in Texas, but in some ways it might change up the way we as hunters went about our hunting and killing, and that would be mandatory check stations. TCH or BradleyGT can correct me on this, but in Nebraska, everyone has so many hours after they kill a deer, to take it in to a state authorized check station and get it logged in and tagged with a state tag and that includes landowners. At least that is the way it was when I hunted up there last.

If it comes down to stretching a tape across the antlers and calling the shots, hunters in general are in deep trouble.
It's sort of an unwritten law...there's a tolerance. Like anything else in the hunting world, it's the spirit of the law that should be respected. Most GWs around here realize that.

CHC what would a check station change ?

Stop and think about it and the antler restriction regs. If EVERYONE, land owners, people who process game at home, etc., had to take an animal to a check in staion, people would not be posting pictures asking about whether a cetain buck was legal or not. They would not be taking shots at those "Iffy" bucks. I ain't saying that I like the idea or would support it, I am just saying that it would change up the way hunters in Texas did business. The thing a lot of folks on here seem to forget, is that even with almost 4000 registered members, that is still only a fraction of a percent of the licensed hunters in Texas, and from experience, I can guarantee you, the folks in this Forum, are NOT really representative of the average hunter running around out there. I am not meaning that derogatorily in any way. In fact I really feel priveledged to be involved with this group, as I feel, that for the most part, we all actually have a higher set of ideals and standards across the board on hunting issues and practices. JMO.

That probably didn't answer your question, but I do believe it would bring about changes that would help with such things as the antler restrictions.

CHC well could be that it would help the state with informantion on the deer herd, but only if the check stations are run by the state GW's, In Tn we had to check each deer at an local check station to get the harvest permit. Most of these check stations where your corner gas station run by some teenage clerk that didn't know a doe from a buck much less whether a cerain buck was legal or not?? Now in Kansas it was a good deal, GW's or state personal ran the check stations,We had no non-res hunters at that time and you were only allowed one deer with one weapon after you were drawn in the drawing, some areas had antler restrictions that was base on the number of points 6 or 8, even 10 on some Fed. Lands, That is what the QDM program research showed was needed at the time. Now Kansas is one of the best Deerherds around. Not the numbers we have here in Texas, maybe not as big overall, but much better than they had before. Okay let me go on record saying I'm on the fence with the antler restrictions that are in place now, I'm hoping this works out in a few years as there is a lot of hunters out there that can't judge the spread on the antlers very good. Hopfully after a few years they can go to some type of point system 8 / 10 or something. JMHO

Nebraska's check stations were at local gas stations, but they trained those folks well. They would even ask if you were going to mount the bucks, and if not, they would cut the check and try to age them. All anything like this takes, is individuals interested enough in the management of deer in their state, to get involved. GW's aren't the answer, they are on the clock, and there is no money available for them to man check stations. There would still be people skirt the regulations, but those that got caught would face heavy enough fines, along with loss of their ability to hunt for a specified length of time, that everyone would take notice and start dioing things differently.

The one thing that amazes me, is that Texas is not a member of the group of states that have allied and when a game crime is committed in one of those states, the perpetrator faces the same legal consequences in like 19 states. That means the loss of hunting priveledges in say Colorado, means the loss of hunting priveledges in 18 other states also. That means that if that person did something bad enough to lose their hunting priveledges in Colorado for life, they lost it in all the member states.

CHC I didn't know that about Texas not being allied with the other states, would be a good ideal. As for the training of personal for check stations, I would say some are run better than others. I manned a check station in Kansas about 5 years as a GW.

I do not understand why Texas is not involved, I would suspect it is a monetary issue, loss of revenue.

The money issue is why it is really difficult to get a GW to attend a Hunters Ed training class, as it would be overtime or they would have to take off time from their patrol duties so it would not show up as overtime.

Mandatory Check Stations are a mute point in Texas, as I think most people would rather see the bag limit reduced than take their deer into a check station. JMO.

CHC Your most likely right.