Remember this? Law changed in MT
Elk
I'm sure most of us remember the hunters from MN who got cited and their elk confiscated for taking pictures before applying the tag to their animal.
MT changed the law, see link.
Much better wording of the law. Now it can actually be followed.
freakin' joke that it happened in the first place.
Game Warden must be named Dudley Do Right or Barney Fife!
sounds to me the warden had a bad day !
Shouldn't that read and before the animal leave's the kill site. The word or to me doesn't seem right.
I guess that makes sense now that I think about it. If the hunter stayed to quarter the elk and had someone else carry out the meat it would then have to be tagged.
I wonder what ever happened with the hunter from mn. Meaning hopefully Montana made it up to him.
According to the article, he's suing them for 2 grand unless they apologize publicly. Seems about right, seeing as he lost an entire animal.
He broke the law that was on the books at the time. now its changed. I had a stop sign on the road below my house. I got a ticket for not coming to a complete stop. I bitched that there were 10 cars on my road for every one that was on the road that the stop sign was for. They did a traffic count and took the stop sign out. But I still had to pay and $80 fine.
I agree with Dan; he did break the letter of the law. That being said officers have quite a bit of digression they can exercise and he certainly followed the spirit of the law. I think it was a complete dick move by the officer even though he was "right". I hope his career suffers as a result of his inability to distinguish unintentional law breaking vs real criminal behavior or lack of caring to distinguish between the two.
It sucks, pay the fine. Getting the law changed is a moral win, let it go.
Stupid law that was subjective. I hope he gets the 2000.
He did break the law. I don't think it's an elk-confiscating-level offense though. Give the guy a ticket and let him keep his elk, or at least don't give his elk meat away.
He's going to end up paying an Attorney $1000 of dollars. And he going to have to go to court in Montana. If he gets a jury trial I don't think he will have a snow balls chance in Hell. Its his money he can spend it any way he wants. But sometimes its best to just take your loss and move on. And take it as a win when you get a law changed. That's the way I feel every day when I drive by the yield sign at the bottom of my hill.
Not 100% sure but didn't they drop the charges against that guy which really made the confiscation look pretty pathetic and uncalled for? Which it was!
He broke the law and unfortunately had to pay the price. Good that his story reached some ears that thought it needed to be changed and they did it. Sorry that he lost the meat, but he did break the law so time to suck it up and quit crying. Montana owes him nothing! he was lucky to get the head back. Obviously he has access to private land so book another hunt and obey the law. Game wardens are out there for a reason and to attack them for doing the duty is ridiculous.
Nobody won in this instant. I'm just glad it wasn't me.
I would say that since he was not found guilty in court that he actually has a pretty good argument. Sometimes it is just the principle of the matter. I wish him luck.
"He broke the law and unfortunately had to pay the price."
Apparently, the county attorney disagrees because the charges were dropped.
This was part of a TV show called "Wardens" that particular show has done nothing but give the Mt FWP wardens a black eye, If the warden had come upon these guys with out all the camera's he most likely would have told them how the law read and told them not to do it again and helped them from there on. But the show must go on and that is where I have a problem
Maybe the DA had pity on the guy, doesn't mean he didn't break the law.
Not a lawyer but there is the intent of the law and then there is the letter of the law. The law was created to prevent the unlawful taking of game. The hunter had a valid hunting license and the tag was filled out which clearly demonstrated that he was not intending to unlawfully take game. The officer’s job is to issue tickets to violators of the law as the law is written. The law stated that the hunter must immediately process and attached the tag to the carcass. The hunter did not follow the letter of the law in the opinion of the citing officer and was issued a citation for not immediately tagging his game? Immediate to me means after my heart stops racing and the pictures are taken. Immediate is about the time it takes for me to calm down so I can punch a tag with a sharp knife and not cut myself. The tag is then attached to the quarter of the animal containing proof of sex and before the elk is transported from the kill site. The hunter was erroneously cited. The prosecution recognized the error on the part of the citing officer and dropped the charge.
You guys hunting Montana this year nothing has changed for the 2015 season. The new rules will start in 2016
"Immediate to me means after my heart stops racing and the pictures are taken."
Unfortunately the law (and case law) and your opinion differ......picture taking prior to affixing a properly filled out tag to the carcass is a clear violation in states where 'immediately affix tag' laws are in affect.
You are correct, you're not a lawyer. :) The correct terminology is the 'spirit of the law and the letter of the law'......not the "intent" of the law. Case law will ultimately discover the true 'intent' of the law.
Erroneously cited? No. A law that definitely needed re-worded and implemented? You bet.
The legislation never defined what "immediately" means. I know of no case where the courts defined immediately to mean before taking pictures. If there is such a case please cite it. In legislation the term immediately can mean instantaneously, within milliseconds, within minutes, within hours, within days, etc. - it all depends on context, circumstances and interpretation.
Clearly in this case he should not have been cited as that is what the county attorney decided and he is in a far better position to know than any of us.
what really concerns me is the "I got a ticket/fine for doing something I deem stupid, so screw the next guy when he gets nailed for something just as dumb"!!
A warden stopped by our turkey camp in NE a couple weeks ago. My 8 year old was playing in the yard of the cabin. The bird he shot 30 minutes earlier was in the back of the truck parked in camp.
The warden asked to see it and gave us a verbal warning for not having the tag attached (it was notched and in my sons pocket). I apologized as I had thought it was like deer hunting where if you are with the carcass it doesn't need to be attached. He said turkey was different. He was friendly, made a big deal about such a nice turkey and left my son smiling. Overall a good encounter for my son.
When he left I checked the regs and it states: "Attach the cancelled permit to the turkey, or keep it on your person if you are with the carcass". I guess 20ft away doesnt qualify as "with". Clearly worded laws are always good. Deer regs are actually the same so I will be attaching it to deer from now on to avoid an interpretation issue.
I guess you "to the letter of the law" guys have halos over your heads and have never done 46 mph in a 45 zone.
The latters of that law were not properly written. What about that fact?
Laws are to prevent unethical practices. The guy was ethical. There was no intent to poach the animal.
What more do you need to know?
Thank you Timbo.
I remember watching the Warden show this winter. The game warden was watching a hunter shoot a deer and saw that the deer was never tagged before they started to drag it out. When they got to the road he asked them about it and he said he had forgot his tag in the pickup. He let him get the tag and put it on the deer and reminded him that he should of tagged it right away. But he never gave the hunter a ticket.
How big of a dick do you have to be to write up a guy who obviously had no intention of any wrong doing and on top of it, confiscate his elk and ruin his hunt?
I bet more than half of all hunters who killed an elk in Montana would be in violation in this guy's eyes. They don't need to rewrite the law, they need to get rid of any dumbass warden on a power trip who can't interpret the intent of the law.
Why is it that when someone breaks the law and get penalized it's the wardens fault? Never the guy who breaks the law regardless of how minor the infraction. Officer discretion comes into play and just because one officers is different than another is luck of the draw.
During the muzzle loader season here in IL we are to wear blaze orange while bowhunting, and I took my orange off while on stand. Two wardens came out 20 mins after I set up to remind me of the law. They were extremely professional and I was also very polite and ended up with a written warning. My fault that I took off my orange and had I gotten a ticket still my fault. I didn't go back and bitch and moan about them interrupting my hunt or writing me up, I broke the law and was cited. All the negative words against the warden when a hunter breaks the law no matter how minor reminds me of the protests in ferguson and riots blaming the cops. If you don't read and understand the game laws don't cry when you get a ticket or your animal taken, because it's the hunters fault!
This is precisely why I would not make a very good warden or law enforcement officer. My revenue intake, in the form of ticketing would be pretty poor, as I would try to educate others about various laws and coerce those under my protection, to do the right thing. It wouldn't be to lock up the entire community for overlooking, or being in grey areas, like Barney Fife did in one episode of Andy Griffith.
As many have pointed out, immediately, even with a firm definition can be understood in several different ways. The manner in which a couple have suggested, would have been to literally run to the elk and as quickly as possible, begin to fill out and attach the tag. Actually, they should probably be writing as they are running so they are able to slap the tag in place with the first touch of their hand. To me immediately would mean, as soon as reasonably possible. And if someone's mind is filled with relishing the moment, taking those pics, etc. the earliest possible would be as BOHNTR said it, when the nerves settle, after a few pictures, etc.
If the warden truly wanted to see if the guy was actually going to break the law, he could have sat tight, and waited for them to begin moving the elk, then move in, check the situation and go from there. Doing so would have provided a better indicator of whether the hunter had broken the law. Also, if he had done his job in this matter, the warden would have a real case that would not have been dismissed, and he wouldn't be being talked about by thousands of hunters across the country as they describe him as an idiot.
He might have broken a law that he didn't know as well too? The way the game departments write rules they in some cases are hard to understand at times? Anyone ever experience that? Tuff break for this fellow, what away to ruin things.
Some facts of this case that some "letter of the law" guys are forgetting is the elk was not moved from the kill site. The warden timed the hunter waiting for 21 minutes before he tagged his elk as not being "tagged immediately" and confiscated his elk as well as giving him a ticket. Thankfully, the county attorney exercised a bit more discretion than the warden and threw out the charges. He did get his rack back but lost all the meat. Any warden with some common sense and the ability to differentiate between someone intentionally violating the law versus someone letting their excitement get in the way of following the strict lettering of the law would not have cited this guy in the first place.
It was BS incident that basically happened to fill time for a TV show. Somebody wanted their 15 min of fame. A waste of time effort and resources of all concerned, including the tax paying general public.
I have a hard time thinking a warden would have gone through all this KNOWING the elk was tagged by the hunters with no persuasion or warning long before they got down to the hunters. Clearly no intenet on breaking any gamelaws. (Warden had even watched and timed it.) Unless there was a camera and reporters riding along and the pressure was on to make some screen time.
TD, you make a good point. Just maybe, they were running short on material for that weeks show, and needed something to show. On the other hand, they could have addressed the encounter with the hunter, reminded everyone of the law in Montana and everyone would have been the better for it.
Who cares if he got the head back. If I were him, I wouldn't want to look at the rack ever again after what happened. The meat is what is important and he lost it for no reason.
The DA obviously didn't feel like he did anything wrong. MT owes him a public apology and an elk tag.
Another point, for those that think one should “just pay the fine and move on”, is if one later applies for a new job, law school, FBI, military academy, etc., etc. – you often have to disclosed all prior convections. Sometimes you even have to disclose all previous arrest and/or charges – even if the case was dropped or you were found not guilty. That can prove problematic (for example in highly competitive positions or admissions requirements) as there may be so many qualified applicants that the hiring or admissions people use any excuse to reject an applicant. A law enforcement officer, DA, etc. has the power to negatively influence one’s future – even if it is later established that an individual should not have been arrested or charged. I have also seen this happen where a DA charges an individual with a crime where they know they can probably not get a convection but this puts you in a position that you will likely have little choice but to plead to a lesser charge. So, you plead to the lesser charge but it is still on “your public record” that you were charged with a more serious offense. Sorry, I’m off my soapbox now!
The warden also waited for the brothers to get the Elk out of the water and haul it back to the farm before deciding to confiscate it. That alone speaks volumes!
If the Hunter had JUST received a fine I doubt it would have come to this. But loosing an elk for taking 20 minutes to tag it, is excessive.
The case was completely bungled by the CO if everything stated by the hunter is accurate and since the case was dismissed the Prosecutor obviously felt it was. First the CO watches the entire deal from his truck with binos of them taking pictures, etc. and then properly tagging the animal before any attempt was made to dress out or move the carcass. Then he swoops down with the camera guy and asks the hunter to bring him his tag because he doesn't want to wade through 2' of water to get to the bull. The guy complies and the CO leaves the scene and says he'll visit them later in the day at the ranch. In a while after they get the bull back there with their tractor the CO shows up with the camera rolling again, writes a ticket for not tagging it immediately, but rather 20 minutes after he says they actually got to it. Then he has them load the bull into his truck even though the hunter said it still needed to be dressed out from the diaphragm forward and confiscates it. The bull should have been taken immediately to a storage facility and maintained properly as evidence until the case was adjudicated and closed. The hunter claims the bull was still in the truck when it went by late in the day in very warm weather. The CO and his superiors claim the bull was taken to a facility, butchered, and all the meat give to the needy when they had no right to do that until the open case was adjudicated in court and the hunter was then either found guilty or changed his original plea to guilty. Each Warden show starts out with the statement and narrative that everything they are showing is not official until that time and the persons on the show are presumed innocent until such time as the case is completed. This whole deal stinks and if that bull was wasted like the hunter thinks it was and the CO can't show it wasn't, then the CO should receive a ticket for wanton waste just like an ordinary citizen would. Even if it was given to the needy it was a violation of the hunter's rights until the case was completed. After the case was dismissed all they could give him was the rack and I don't blame him a bit for what he's doing besides getting a Legislator to sponsor a Bill and have the law changed, as has been done with "immediately" stricken from the books.
LBshooter,
Really? This clown of a CO made himself and his agency look like complete jackwagons. at least the DA had some common sense and got out while the gettin' was good. Everything that Barney Fife wannabe did was wrong and I'd be going after them myself if I was in that guys position.
Bullhound,
I agree that it was an extreme position on the part of the warden, however, the guy did break the law. How many guys did he stop that day or week for the same violation and gave them a warning and just got tired of warnings. I'll bet that hunter will tag any animal he kills in the future first thing, he may even try to tag them before he shoots them. I have seen plenty of guys kill deer and take them away without a tag on because they don't want to buy another tag. This hunter just happen to be the unlucky one who got wacked and it's to bad for him but it was within the law. To demand an apology from the state and 2000 dollars I think is a stretch.
LBS: "I agree that it was an extreme position on the part of the warden, however, the guy did break the law. How many guys did he stop that day or week for the same violation and gave them a warning and just got tired of warnings. I'll bet that hunter will tag any animal he kills in the future first thing, he may even try to tag them before he shoots them. I have seen plenty of guys kill deer and take them away without a tag on because they don't want to buy another tag. This hunter just happen to be the unlucky one who got wacked and it's to bad for him but it was within the law. To demand an apology from the state and 2000 dollars I think is a stretch."
If you think that guy was wrong, then you're stating that about 99% of the hunters violate the law out there because most do the same thing by admiring the animal when they get to it, mess with their pack and take some pictures, etc. The CO watched the guy do all of that as well as properly tag the animal right after that and then went down and made a fool of himself and his Department. The Prosecutor quickly figured it out and dismissed the case and the Legislature easily changed the requirement after the debacle and terrible press the state and department received and rightly so! It's my understanding from reading about this on another site that a local who knows the CO said he's a dick and learned those traits from his old man who is also a CO and a big dick with the department.
LBshooter, the CO was within his right to fine the guy, but you really think that taking his elk was justified?
Even if so, the state cannot just confiscate private property as evidence and then not give it back if the case is thrown out or if he's found innocent in court.
Only if he was convicted would the state have legal grounds to keep the elk. Once the case was thrown out, the elk should have been returned, but it was not. The same goes for seized vehicles, guns, etc. The state has to give you your stuff back unless you are found guilty of something.
If you buy a full size elk from one of the ranches that raise and butcher them for sale, an entire elk costs about $1500 so asking for 2 grand is about right. I would also accept 250 lbs of elk meat, but nevertheless, the guy has righteous indignation since he should have gotten his meat back.
I would be so ticked off if my elk meat was given away before I had my day in court. That just shows disrespect for due process and private property, two very important things in American life and liberty.
""The CO watched the guy do all of that as well as properly tag the animal right after that and then went down and made a fool of himself""
This is the part that is missed by many here. The guy had the elk tagged when the CO showed his face! The guy did NOT do anything wrong and the DA knew it. They illegally wasted or gave his elk meat away. He has every right to recovery from the state. I think he is being pretty easy on them myself.
LB: "I was also very polite and ended up with a written warning. My fault that I took off my orange and had I gotten a ticket still my fault. I didn't go back and bitch and moan about them interrupting my hunt or writing me up, I broke the law and was cited."
No... you were not cited. You were warned. The next time you are asked if you have ever been convicted of a game violation the answer is no. Big difference.
Another big difference is intent. That is a very key word. You were guilty of intent to break the law because you removed your blaze orange pure and simple. That hunter had zero intent to break the law and actually tagged his elk properly... just not fast enough to avoid becoming the victim of a desperate CO on camera.
MT FWP will never apologize. But in a way they already did by taking the time to rewrite the law. But I personally feel that they owe him a fee elk tag because the confiscation is irreversible. To me that would be a form of apology for that. I also think the CO should be demoted to pencil pusher! At least for a temporary period of time.
Montana is including a letter stating the changes with your hunting license this year. Just got mine yesterday.
Montana is including a letter stating the changes with your hunting license this year. Just got mine yesterday.
Well all I can say is that he did break the letter of the law, should he have been hammered by the warden, no. I have said that and yet some of you want to attack and defend the guy. If the law states immediately tag your animal then yes 99 if not 100 % are guilty of doing the same as the guy from MN,the only difference is they were/not being watched by a warden. I have an idea, for all of you who are irate about the guy loosing his elk maybe you all could pony up some dough because I don't think MT will. Hell he will spend more in getting a lawyer to sue, so you guys who outraged and feeling sorry for the hunter need to start a collection. Fr the other 99% of hunters learn from this mans misfortune and tag immediately or we might be getting a ticket too.
LBshooter,
The DA did not think he broke the law. The charges were dropped, which makes him innocent. Yet, he still lost his elk. It was stolen from him by the warden, and likely spoiled and wasted.
If you are not charged with a crime, should you still be punished for it??
The Da dropped the charge. Why? we don't know, a reason isn't stated. Maybe the warden didn't show up to court or maybe he had pity on the guy and didn't feel like convicting him over a minor incident, they didn't give a reason as to why the charge was dropped. The article does say that it took 20 mins for the hunter to tag the elk, I would say that's not even in the ball park as immediately. It doesn't take 20 mins to shoot some pics, and as the article states the warden walked up as he was getting ready to dress the elk and still the tag was not on. He's lucky the DA had pity and drop the charge, And he got his elk head back which I'm sure is up on the wall. Safe to say he won't be waiting to tag an animal in the future after killing it.
LBS: "Well all I can say is that he did break the letter of the law, should he have been hammered by the warden, no. I have said that and yet some of you want to attack and defend the guy. If the law states immediately tag your animal then yes 99 if not 100 % are guilty of doing the same as the guy from MN,the only difference is they were/not being watched by a warden. I have an idea, for all of you who are irate about the guy loosing his elk maybe you all could pony up some dough because I don't think MT will. Hell he will spend more in getting a lawyer to sue, so you guys who outraged and feeling sorry for the hunter need to start a collection. Fr the other 99% of hunters learn from this mans misfortune and tag immediately or we might be getting a ticket too."
We're not defending the guy for not tagging it immediately. The CO watched the whole thing and the tag was on the elk when he finally went down there to the kill site. Then because he didn't want to wade water he asked the hunter to bring him the kill tag, so the hunter removed it from the elk and took it to him so the CO didn't have to get wet! I have a better idea in that you need to get some reading comprehension if you're going to argue the matter and understand that the guy was not guilty of anything until it was adjudicated in a court of law just like any other offense unless you plead guilty by paying the ticket. The guy felt he was wronged and went to the Prosecutor who agreed the guy got the shaft and dropped the case before it even went to court! When the CO confiscated that elk it was not legal for him to do anything with it other than to maintain it properly as evidence so it was usable at a later date by either the hunter who was still the rightful owner, or by a food bank after the case was completed and the ticket was upheld. Even if the meat was used at a food bank, which the FWP has not proven, that was an illegal act in this particular case. This whole "Gestapo like deal" by the CO was much worse the way it was mishandled than the hunter not tagging the animal until 20 minutes after it was killed. I'd be suing that CO for damages too and then see if the FWP has the balls to waste taxpayer money defending him for what was an easy to prove violation of the hunters civil rights when he did not get back what was rightfully his after the case was dismissed. This really pisses me off because I was in a LE job with the State of MI for over 30 years before I retired in 2002 and this kind of BS makes it hard for those who try to serve the public and that use common sense in doing their job. It's no wonder with some of the crap that is being exposed now by the few who are jackasses like this CO that make it appear LE Officers are all derelict in their duties.
Read the article the OP put up, didn't read anything about water. Regardless, the guy took 20 mins to tag and he got caught , lucky for him he didn't get convicted. He wants to spend his money suing more power to him. You are always going to have law enforcement officials who have power trips, nothing you can do about it and as long as you are legal you won't have a problem. Just think, if the warden watched him tag the elk he never would have had an encounter with him. I'll be watching for the fund to start for the poor guy who lost his meat.
LBS: "Read the article the OP put up, didn't read anything about water. Regardless, the guy took 20 mins to tag and he got caught , lucky for him he didn't get convicted. He wants to spend his money suing more power to him. You are always going to have law enforcement officials who have power trips, nothing you can do about it and as long as you are legal you won't have a problem. Just think, if the warden watched him tag the elk he never would have had an encounter with him. I'll be watching for the fund to start for the poor guy who lost his meat."
Now you're just posting outright BS because you're so far behind on this case you need to shut up and listen and quit making an ass of yourself! That article is only one of many and doesn't mention some of what went on that day. What is fact is that the bull went down in 2'of water as it died and that was one of the reasons the guys took longer to get it tagged than a normal scenario. The CO watched the whole thing including Latvala put the tag on the animal BEFORE he went down and then Latvala obliged him by taking the tag off and taking it to him so he didn't have to wade water when the CO asked him to do that. To bad the CO didn't wade out and drown on his way to the carcass as big an ass as he was that morning! This has all been hashed out in previous articles right after it happened, so you keep running your mouth and don't even know or apparently don't want to listen and know the facts of the case. I have even had correspondence back and forth with Mr. Latvala about his case, so please quit posting stuff that you know nothing about! Here is what was in an earlier article with Mr. Latvala describing what happened: I gave respect with a prayer, discussed removal plan, took pictures, validated and tagged my elk and started field dressing. These were my actions "immediately" after dropping my elk. That took 21 minutes according to the young warden.The warden and cameraman showed up 10 to 15 minutes later and that proof is recorded. I never knew I was being watched, or timed until I noticed two men wearing camouflage jackets, 100 yards away walking towards me. When they were closer, the warden raised his arm and identified himself. I waved back to them and in a good humored voice said, "Are you guys here to help me"? The reply was a "laugh". Then when the warden saw the 20 feet of open water that separated us he said... You know it's early and it's cold. I'm going to be out here all day and I really don't want to get wet and muddy right now. Will you bring me your tag? Already being wet to the waist, (and having no clue as to what was about to unfold) I said "Sure! I'm already wet". Then removed the tag from the frosted left antler and wadded across the water and handed it to him. It's not my intention to debate the MT Hunting Regulations in this reply or to bad mouth wardens in general. My intent is to clear up a few statements that suggest I had some kind of intent to break the law... and a few comments that question my hunting ethics. And then to the comments which suggest that some kind of verbal abuse or arrogance on my part happened, or using my out-of-state status as an excuse is TOTALLY wrong. My only mention of how tagging is done in Minnesota was in reply to the warden's question... "So how do they do it in Minnesota"? When it was apparent he was confiscating my elk I asked, what will happen to it? He said "The head will be kept as evidence, the meat will be processed and frozen until the outcome of your court date". If that is common practice, why didn't it happen that way? Maybe because my bull rode around for 6 to 7 hours after being killed, in bright sun and 71 degree temperatures before arriving at a processor has something to do with it.
If you want to argue that the guy broke the law and that the CO was within his right to ticket him and take his elk, that's fine. You can argue the letter of the law as that's the letter of the law.
The letter of the law also states, though, that once a case is dismissed or the accused is found innocent, that the evidence, if a personal belonging, be returned to its rightful owner.
The letter of the law goes two ways. The state is held to it as well.
The letter of the law also states that when a case is thrown out, no matter the reason, that the state has found the accused at no fault. So for the sake of argument and for the record, he was found to not have done anything wrong, otherwise, he'd have been prosecuted. So when you say he broke the law, the state of MT actually disagrees with you.
As it stands, the man has been cleared of wrongdoing. The state, on the other hand, has not returned him what is rightfully his.
I, for one, won't be contributing to any fund for him to get his meat, because I don't owe him a single ounce of elk meat, since I did not take a single ounce of elk meat from him. The state of MT, on the other hand, did take his elk meat and gave it away to either a pantry or a landfill, and thus violated the letter of the law. They owe him 250 lbs of elk meat.
Topgun, I have commented on what I read, didn't see or read every article about this. Stated my opinion on what I read and I'm sorry your not happy. You seem to be a bit upset maybe your stressed out about this. You talked with the hunter , good for you but there are two sides to every story, did you talk to the warden? I would bet not, so you have one side of the story. Since you so wrapped up on this story I think maybe you should be the one to start the fund to get the MN hunter some elk meat, I'll look for that fund you start.
Idyllwildarcher, my comments were to the point you stated and I believe in each statement I was in agreement that the warden went to far. It's funny how when a differing opinion is put up the wolves come out and attack, ie Topgun. The meat is gone, he's not getting it back from the state, and as I stated earlier I doubt the state is going to pay him 2 G's or publicly apologize. But, I am confident that Topgun will raise the funds to buy the MN hunter his elk meat, right TG ?
So you agree with me that it was improper of them to give the meat away before his day in court?
"The meat is gone, he's not getting it back from the state, and as I stated earlier I doubt the state is going to pay him 2 G's or publicly apologize."
I agree with this statement 100%. But just because it's true, doesn't make it right in the eyes of the law.
That's why he's suing. Now, personally, I wouldn't ask for an apology because I think an apology from a bureaucracy is empty and meaningless, but you can put a dollar amount on anything.
Look at the link. Before I started hunting, I used to order game meat from these folks. It's good quality farm raised game meat. The link is to their cost for an entire elk. The gentleman in question is basically just asking for what is rightfully his.
Archer, yes I agree. But as you stated , bureaucracy and it's tough to go up against it. As I said before if he wants to spend his time and money suing that's up to him and more power to him. In the end he is most likely not going to win even if he gets some meat. Yes I know meat is costly, but this guy isn't the only one out there who has run into a hard nose warden and certainly will not be the last.
I did 46 in a 45mph zone today. I may not be on Bowsite for a little while because I'm going to turn myself in tomorrow. I did not push the gas pedal too hard. I was going down a hill and it was gravity's fault. But after some thought I realized that I didn't push the brake pedal either and I can't live with that on my conscience. I hope they don't confiscate my truck.
Mule -As long as they are not filming an episode of Cops when you turn yourself in the truck should be safe.
Even if they do impound it aren't they supposed to give it back, for a fee, after I am released?
So if they wreck it and then scrap it that wouldn't be fair by the letter of the law right?
Or will that be my own fault because I was coasting down a hill too fast?
tough luck MP, take your medicine and get a new truck.................... you did break the law
