I agree, and don't understand it either.  Sure hope they followed game regulations...looks like they're up north, and there are very few states that allow more than one buck during (what I assume to be) rifle season.  If not, they should throw the book at them.  

You'd think to have that many good bucks on on a piece of land that it had to be pretty big.  Maybe, and trying to think the best, its a game ranch and they're just trying to make room for exotics or other bloodlines?  We'll likely never know. 

I would be willing to bet that this photo was taken on a hunting preserve somewhere.

However, if in fact these deer were on a lease, and were taken by legal means, by the legal leaseholders (who in fact paid for the right to take the deer), why is that wrong? It would be one thing if it was a big pile of immature bucks, but it doesn't look to be the case.

Keep yer eyes peeled!

Also depends on how large the lease is, if its 5000 acres then thats not nearly has bad as a 500 acre lease.  I agree with Duckwhacker they all appear to be mature bucks.  Although takeing that many deer at one time might not be that smart as you still have to process them all.

If they stayed within the limits of the law, why not? I could only assume, and this is strictly my opinion, that for this type of effect to occur, the landowner either screwed them out of the lease or drove up the price or its a canned hunt. Just me though. I don't think they have a reason to worry about the future deer management on a lease that they are leaving.

regardless of legality, it still makes no sense to me, and in my opinion, it's wasteful, looks bad, and is bad management. Again, that's my opinion. I would not want to come to that place and try to hunt behind that.

I am very DISAPPOINTED with these so called hunters. I too have lose a lease and never have I even thought of doing something like that. This is most unsportsman like. The anti-hunting establishment will have a field day. They will say to the general public," THIS IS WHAT ALL HUNTERS DO TO THE POOR ANIMALS, THEY JUST SLAUGHTER THEM FOR NO GOOD REASON". Thanks a DUNG HEAP guys.

I personally don't see the problem. The whole idea of managing is to get the best quality deer that you can. They did that and now they have taken what they managed. I mean there are many variables not listed such as why they lost the lease. Did they break any lease rules etc. But from what is stated, I just don't see how they can be condemed for taking deer that they strived to get to that size and mass simply because they took about 20 at one time. It's not like just a few folks did it. If I count right it's 18 deer between 11 folks. What is the problem?

"Hate me if you want to, Love me if you can" Git-R-Done!

I have to say I agree with you SUPERG. If they did all this legally, I can't find any fault in them. They are the reason these deer exist, and why should they pass on their hard work and management to allow the next guy to take these fine deer?

Sorry guys, but I must stand by my position. Although I do agree that there are a lot of unknowns. Maybe it is just me, but from what I understand, they took the deer just to get back at the land owner. I do not condem them for taking any legal deer, and I also understand the dissapointment of loosing a lease after you have put so much effert into it. However, that said, I still think that they took far to many mature deer for the good of the deer heard even it they did loose the lease. Sportsmen are responsible for the care of all lands and the game there. To take this many mature deer at one time cannot be for the good of the deer heard, aside from giving the anti-hunting edtablishment visual ammunition to shoot back at all of us.

But there is still the question of why they lost the lease.  Did the landowner let them manage and then once the deer were where he wanted them kick them off so he could go to package hunts? Much higher lease prices?  If so then the landowner did the hunters wrong, and i think that they should take all the quality bucks that they managed.  But there is always the other side of the coin and maybe they had it comming because of things they had been doing, but we will never know.  I have just seen that happen several times where hunters manage manage manage and create a very nice hunting lease and the landowner kicks them off because he see an opportunity for a lot more money. 

I agree with CRANIUM CRUSHER here. There are too many unknowns, but I have also heard too many stories of landowners doing there lessees wrong. The lessees spend their time and money to develop an exceptional deer heard to hunt, then the landowner sees dollar signs and kicks off those guys who have put in the time and effort. This happens so often now days and I would be willing to bet that is what happened here, although we will never know.

I hear what you guys, and have seen the very things you are talking about happen...unfortunately far too often.  But, in the final analysis, regardless of why this group got kicked-off it's the landowner's right to do as he pleases - its his land and, like most of us, those hunters probably signed a one year lease.  After that period the landowner has fulfilled his obligations and next year is a brand new ball game.

I agree with William.  A landowner's apparent less-than-fair treatment of his hunters never justifies retaliation...and, if this email is correct, that's exactly what they did.

I still think that if i had put a lot of time and effort into deer management on a lease for 25 years, and then found out i was getting kicked off I would propably have taken a trophy my last year too.  Why would you pass it the last year you, wouldnt be able to take it the next year.  I might would agree if they had just shot everthing that moved, but they all look like mature deer from the picture.  So maybe its just unfortunate that they all did it on the same weekend and made it look bad.  Would it have been the same argument if all the same deer were taken through out the season?  Everyone on the lease taking a trophy they took part in building up?  Whats wrong with that?  And if those hunters singed a one year lease then they signed 25 of them, so what makes the last year so different?  Still say there are to many variables to make judgement.

I guess I need to splain what I meant by why they lost the lease. What I was refering to is if the landowner sold it and it will be developed into housing subdivisions or warehouse type areas then I feel that they not only had the right, but probably should have taken these beautiful mature animals. The animals would most likely suffer malnutrition and other problems if that were true. NO, they shouldn't take them just out of spite and to retaliate against the land owner if he's just going too package hunts or a super high "corporate" lease. Waaaayyyyy too many variables to make any kind of informed judgement.

"Hate me if you want to, Love me if you can" Git-R-Done!

Jason,

I agree - I would have taken a trophy deer too.  But, there's 11 people and as best I can tell at least 21-22 bucks.  basically, everyone took 2 mature deer.  If this was a huge lease (20,000+ acres) it may not have have had a real dramatic effect.  But, this looks like big woods country...most places I'm aware like that of don't have this caliber of bucks.   

Part of me still thinks this is a game ranch, and they were culling out for either genetics or exotics.

How much you wanna bet either...

a. the picture is doctored

b. the story is made up

c. the picture is doctored and the story is made up

It would be funny if most of those are shoulder mounts.

I hate "meat pole" shots of whitetails...always have.  I think it's so disrespectful.  Just my opinion.   Makes the whole thing seem wrong from the get-go.

I would be willing to bet this is a "preserve" and the story isn't true.

True that the photo may well be fake, doctored, or this could be a preserve. Any or all of the above could be true. But if the deer were taken JUST FOR RETALIATION for loosing the lease, than that is just wrong. We are sportsmen. Believe me, as David has stated, I also would have taken a trophy as well, especially if I knew that it was my last year on the property. But ONLY ONE. I believe that one trophy per person per year is more than enough for anyone, this will give you something to hunt for that is better and bigger than what you allready have even if you have to hunt on a new lease. THIS IS WHAT TROPHY HUNTING IS ALL ABOUT. 

I've seen this photo several times and have heard many different explanations, includuing that the deer are in fact mounts, but who really knows.

Hardy, I agree about the photo....and I can only hope the story is bogus as well. Either way, I don't like it.

I'd bet it's a preserve. The horn on the far right looks like the crown on a nice red stag.

Donnis Adams

If they shot legally then everybody can say what they want. If it is a BS photo then it worked on all of us. If they were taken off the lease because the land owner saw a chance to make big money, then he got what he deserved.  If they just wanted to shot a lot of animals for no reason then the future will bring their rewards to them in spades.

Let it be written let it be so.

www.swinehuntersintexas.com

Guys, I've lived in several states where the animals (deer, birds, small game) were owned by EVERYONE in the state, until a hunter legally shot and killed the animal and added it ho thier game bag (or tagged it).  I do find it appalling that so many deer where shot at one time, and treated so poorly in the photo. The antis would have a field day with this photo! However this ended, I hope the deer were procedded and didn't go to waste.