I'll leave the assuming to you guys...as I have seen both sides of these stories. Ive personally known guys who got EXACTLY what they deserved for game infractions, and I've seen others get completely screwed over by the law without any real facts in the case. I will say this for now though, had this deer NOT been a 200"+ deer killed on likely the most infamous whitetail deer hunt ever filmed (for realtree at that, go figure)...it wouldn't be getting the attention it has. ALSO the main part of the fines/jail time/case comes from violating the Lacey Act by transporting the allegedly illegal deer across state lines back to his home state of Tennessee. However, the statute of limitations on the Lacey Act is 5 years, so they either filed the charges just in the nick of time and hope to work out the case before trial date, or may be a day late and a dollar short. Poaching animals, while wrong, is just a state violation. Cross state lines with illegal wild animal parts, and it then becomes a federal case thanks to the Lacey Act. I personally can't stand the guys personality or tv show, but I hope for his sake this is the DNR trying to nail another high profile case to get PR for their fight against poaching. Several guys have been SCREWED by the Kansas DNR over outfitter violations, but that is another story and case. As for the dudes name, Spook is simply a childhood nickname as his birthday is halloween.
Should it not? In a case like this there is no difference in the monetary value of the life of a deer, this is purely what that buck is worth by horn size to the state. And rightly so. I'm sure it didn't help when they decided to exploit and pimp the deer, that's what really pisses me off.
Well if that is the case then it is a big deal and he should be punished stiffly. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
L Z or one of his friends might have finally realized by watching the video that it was in fact shot on his land. He is probably mad because he figures he could have gotten more for his land if he could have said a 230" buck was shot on my property. I am not sure how else this could have came up 5 years later. I guess I also dont understand the thinking if he shot it on one side of the line but didnt have the right tag but it is close so it is not that big of a deal whether he leases the land or not has nothing to do with the situation...its across the line. Would every one been tempted to shoot that buck because of his size given the situation...HELL YEAH but that doesnt make it ok.
What a bummer when I read about this. I remember watching that hunt like it was yesterday - one of the few hunts that completely enthralled me. I never really cared for him, but to think that your feelings are not validated by the law is pretty gross. I''ve never been a fan of his - see this thread... http://forums.bowhunting.com/showthread.php?23620-Spook-Spann&highlight=spook+spann I think you could probably make a case that his career is a hoax because he never really got much traction until that deer was taken.
That deer definitely put him "on the map" so to speak. However, it appears he was financially well off anyways. This is a tough case to determine with limited facts. The one thing I do agree with is that 10 years seems way off base for this type of offense. I know it is the standard max that he is facing, and I seriously doubt he will see a day in jail. His hunting career definitely got a jump start, but it is hard to believe he would be dumb enough to film a hunt on someone else's land and put it on national tv if he knew he did something illegal. Maybe I give people too much credit!
He is simply being targeted and being used as an example. There is an 'attack' on "the hunter". Just like there is an attack on small farms in this country. A lot of people out there think that hunting is barbaric and wrong. That we as Americans should always 'buy' our meat from the supermarket. It is more humane...What a bunch of morons. He is the kind of guy that all hunters should 'support'. It is not a 'privilege' to be able to hunt, it is a right as an American Citizen. The way I see it, this guy should not have to do any time and should not have to pay any fine. This is just wrong.
Absolutely ridiculous. I'm all for following and respecting game laws, but in the end, its just a deer. Lots of big, hard bone makes some guys go crazy. If this wasn't a high scoring deer, I doubt there would be charges because no one would report it.
Incorrect. Hunting is a privilege in this country, not a right. The "attack" on hunters often comes from other hunters. The larger the deer that is killed, the more often it seems to happen. Someone most likely reported the alleged illegal act by Spann. The only people that would report that he illegally killed a large deer are other hunters.
Probably. But, IMO - it is like stealing. If it is a candy bar or a car, there should be a difference. The crime isn't prorated for size, which is probably should be. But, really, it is the principle.
Why should a buck with big antlers be "worth" more? You are using two things with different monetary values. The tag for a buck cost the same no matter how much antler is on its head. The hunters are the ones that put a higher value on it, not the state.
Sorry if this has been mentioned but I don't have the time to read through all of this post. However, I'll give everyone some insight according to IL leasing. If a person is renting property in IL in access to I believe 40 acres they are entitle to landowners permits. Not sure if KS has the same laws, but I would think that he was leasing more than 40 acres?? I do not know what the requirements are for landowner tags and where they can hunt. For instance does one need a separate landowner tag for each property they hunt? One would think it would be for all property. Another minor rule about IL landowners permits is that the permit holder must reside on the property. I know because I tried to get a landowner tag for our IL 40 acres after I moved to KS and was told you must reside on said property to be eligible for such permits. A lot of people that own property for hunting don't do that, but I guess it's not a big deal to the local GW's??
I still can't understand why people are arguing it so much. Did he illegally take a deer? Yes. Did he illegally transport said deer? Yes. It's so cut and dry that it's not worth the breath to prove otherwise. Should he be punished more stiffly based on the deer's size? YES. The revenue that deer could have brought is impossible to guess. How many other states do Governors tags? Our latest one sold for $300K. Great program when used in moderation. No, but in this case it is, as well as many others. Like I stated earlier in this thread, in my state once an animal reaches a certain score its value to the state goes up, meaning the fines follow suit. It is now considered a Trophy Animal. Not saying this is the same in other states, as I don't know, but this is just an example. To a state, the deer's life holds no value of monetary worth over a pre-established number, but the antlers/horns/size do.
Basically the article says that Spook had a landowner tag, shot the deer on land leased from LZ, neglected to tell LZ, then transported the deer back to Ten. Landowner tags have a certain set of rules that apply to them. This article states the deer was taken outside of those rules. The deer was then transported which is another violation. He shot the deer on video, meaning they have a location in which the deer was taken. If the landowner tag applied to that location, or he had a tag to cover that area, then an indictment more than likely would not have been brought against him. Whether he's guilty or not doesn't seem all that hard to figure out. You have a location and manner in which the deer was tagged. Chances are, since they've gone as far as to make charges against him, they have a case that he was outside the boundry of laws.
Aside from the obvious debate here about right/wrong, legal/illegal whatever. All i have to say(its probably already been stated) but just like there's no crying in baseball, there should be no rapping in bowhunting
I think the thing to remember is that he needs to have 'Knowingly' broken the law. If he can convice the court/jury that he didn't know he was on the other property, he could be found innocent. I sat on a jury for a tresspassing trial. (seriously... rolls eyes...) The defendant said that they did not know they were tresspassing. There was no question tresspassing had occurred. The law said she had to know she was in wrong. All she had to say was... "I didn't know" and we couldn't convict her. It was huge waste of taxpayer $$$.
In some instances... yes. There are quite a few laws that have 'knowingly' and 'believes' written in them.
