It is the deer you are thinking about. The one that is on the cover of Monster Bucks whatever number that he shot from the ground. I really wonder if we would have heard anything about this or charges had been brought if it was a smaller buck....even 170"er.
To me the deer size means nothing reagarding how you evaluate this. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Whats the difference? In this instance illegal is illegal. Why lease it? Who knows.... Lock up the land surrounding his? Try to kill the buck anyways and get away with it?
I'm surprised no one has commented on the possible 10 years in jail and $270,000 fines. That seems insanely over the top. Hell, child molesters don't get near that.
seems as if they always throw the max at them and let the lawyers talk it down to a lesser charge. The reason they do it is so they can at least get something out of the deal. I mean if they said 2 yrs and 50000 in fines his lawyer would get it to 2 months jail and 5k in fees. Look at what they did to Follies from Pittsfield IL. That man is doing prison time....... But, thats also a federal charge when you mess with Waterfowl. But I do agree seems a little bit high.
Or you may have been discussing just bowhunting. You can only get two anysex bow tags as a landowner. In that case your Iowa friends would have been correct. If you are very hardcore, you can fill your late season muzzleloader tag with a bow bringing the total to three even with a bow. I am usually ready to put the bow down by then though.
Some states would. In MT after a male animal reaches a certain score they are considered a "trophy" and the fines go up considerably. Do I agree with placing more of an emphasis on "trophy" deer? Yes. I value any deer life as the same, but in the day and age of auction tags and NR dollars I value their antlers more in a legal sense.
Illegal is not illegal. Common sense has to prevail. The punishment must fit the crime AND the intention of the law. If the dude simply didn't go down to the hardwarevstore and buy a tag that he could of easily got vs shooting a deer he could of not otherwise shot but did it anyway ate two different things. Both are illegal and deserve punishment. Both deserve much different levels of punishment. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
I agree with that. But in this instance he did not have a tag for where the buck was killed, regardless of whether he could not or could. Illegal.
I see where you are coming from and its a valid point. It's just a cut and dry deal to me, though. In its natural state it was a poached buck.
Since this is kinda dying out what do you think his lawyers will do for him? Think they will be able to clear his name or will he end up being like ted and foiles
I get your position as well. I still want more information. Like I said before i hope he gets whatever he deserves. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Brad, its insanely unlikely that he could have gone down to the hardware store and gotten a tag for the unit he's in. Most likely, its one of the harder units to get a tag for. (Or was in 2007) Back then, its not likely that there were any left over tags. That's pretty safe to assume.
