Sitka Gear Optifade Cover

One Eyed Game Warden?

RKstillhunt'n

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2023
Messages
35
propertyl get deep if you all let it. This will be the beginning of a long and complicated real life situation brought to you via this forum. Two game wardens get on a very large piece of property that has essentially been abandoned but still partially owned by a corporation that filed bankruptcy some years back. The fences are tattered, down, or even non existent in some places along with many areas not having any trespassing signage or purple paint to deter wrongful entry onto the property. It was known, that the corporation wouldn't allow the game wardens on the property back when the corporation rules still applied for safety and liability reasons.
Somebody I know drove onto the property a few years ago and parked on it. They went on a hike across many acres of land to get to their stopping point, then turned around and hiked back, all the while trying to obtain some solitude and peace by simply being away from the local population. When this person got back to their vehicle in the dark, the two wardens drew down on them at basically point blank with a machine gun and a magnum revolver pistol. The hiker had a gun with them and the wardens only discovered this when they pointed their guns at them with flashlights mounted to their guns or in hand all at the same time. They arrested them and took them to jail. They admitted using satellite triggered trail cameras to alert them when somebody used these sparse trails to enter the land. So essentially you have two wardens on property that the land owner is allegedly unaware of, if the land owner is a corporation that has rules that say they are not allowed on the property. To boot they're baiting and enforcing the law on this property. They might claim it's the "open fields doctrine" that allows them on the property, but how do they differentiate who owns what? The property consists of tens of thousands of acres across the state that is being let back to previous land owners, or sold to new ones. If there's no communication between the law and the corporation, how do the wardens enforce anything other than the corrupt idealism of using the vast property as bait and trap material. The property looks the same across the board, so who's to say what goes? The appraisal district and research? I doubt it! The hiker never got a trespassing fine, go figure! He did receive a game violation months after the fact. The one eyed game warden claimed that the DA's office filed another charge after the fact, because of a twenty year old prior. The prior didn't involve game either, but they must be reaching for straws to make it look acceptable on the game warden's behalf. You know, the part where they went on private property without the land owners permission or consent. Just for the record, the corporation did not file charges on the hiker, but claim that they will if they are aware of any crimes committed there. Also, can a Game Warden point a gun in the dark at a person when they have a noticeable eye injury? The warden admitted having a torn retina in his eye. It was noticeable at night time by the hiker, reason why the hiker asked about the bad eye.
Legitimate opinions and answers wanted, thanks. Still an open case to date.
 
propertyl get deep if you all let it. This will be the beginning of a long and complicated real life situation brought to you via this forum. Two game wardens get on a very large piece of property that has essentially been abandoned but still partially owned by a corporation that filed bankruptcy some years back. The fences are tattered, down, or even non existent in some places along with many areas not having any trespassing signage or purple paint to deter wrongful entry onto the property. It was known, that the corporation wouldn't allow the game wardens on the property back when the corporation rules still applied for safety and liability reasons.
Somebody I know drove onto the property a few years ago and parked on it. They went on a hike across many acres of land to get to their stopping point, then turned around and hiked back, all the while trying to obtain some solitude and peace by simply being away from the local population. When this person got back to their vehicle in the dark, the two wardens drew down on them at basically point blank with a machine gun and a magnum revolver pistol. The hiker had a gun with them and the wardens only discovered this when they pointed their guns at them with flashlights mounted to their guns or in hand all at the same time. They arrested them and took them to jail. They admitted using satellite triggered trail cameras to alert them when somebody used these sparse trails to enter the land. So essentially you have two wardens on property that the land owner is allegedly unaware of, if the land owner is a corporation that has rules that say they are not allowed on the property. To boot they're baiting and enforcing the law on this property. They might claim it's the "open fields doctrine" that allows them on the property, but how do they differentiate who owns what? The property consists of tens of thousands of acres across the state that is being let back to previous land owners, or sold to new ones. If there's no communication between the law and the corporation, how do the wardens enforce anything other than the corrupt idealism of using the vast property as bait and trap material. The property looks the same across the board, so who's to say what goes? The appraisal district and research? I doubt it! The hiker never got a trespassing fine, go figure! He did receive a game violation months after the fact. The one eyed game warden claimed that the DA's office filed another charge after the fact, because of a twenty year old prior. The prior didn't involve game either, but they must be reaching for straws to make it look acceptable on the game warden's behalf. You know, the part where they went on private property without the land owners permission or consent. Just for the record, the corporation did not file charges on the hiker, but claim that they will if they are aware of any crimes committed there. Also, can a Game Warden point a gun in the dark at a person when they have a noticeable eye injury? The warden admitted having a torn retina in his eye. It was noticeable at night time by the hiker, reason why the hiker asked about the bad eye.
Legitimate opinions and answers wanted, thanks. Still an open case to date.
Huh? mtmuley
 
Lots of ifs,
1. Bankruptcy trustee could have requested trail cams be placed to monitor property.
2. State law(purple post) could prohibit trespass if trespasser doesn’t have permission
3. One eyed warden could have a meth lab
4. Trespasser was cited for?
5. If warden had one good eye wouldn’t he be on par with Rooster?
 
Back
Top