Tag your animal immediately!

[Topgun 30-06]

What would you prefer, that Jim just bend over and take it up the wazoo like that GW tried to do by not following the law?! The FWP hasn't handled this the way they should have from the getgo and if they had this wouldn't have blown up in their face all over the country the way it has! Jim is just using the legal rights he has available to him and 99% of us agree that he should have that right. I'm surprised that this Wardens show hasn't caused something to blow up in their face before now because a reality show following a GW or any LE around has the potential to do exactly what has happened in Jim's case.

 

[BuzzH]

I would prefer this much effort, time, and media attention be given to something that makes better wildlife habitat, hunting, fishing, public access, public lands, etc.

Trying to take down the MTFWP Department and TV show over the meat from a raghorn bull is over the top, as a best case.

Like I said, this is the outcome when stupid collides with stupid.

 

[Big Fin]

A bad situation, all the way around.

Having been an expert witness in dozens of court cases, here is my prediction of how this will shake out if it goes to court. I have read comments on some of the newspaper posts that the hunter should sue the state. Haven't read every post herein, but the idea that a lawsuit is good for the hunter, seems a stretch.

Any lawsuit will be a civil claim against FWP, not a criminal claim. Unless, the hunter is asserting the FWP warden committed a crime in this process.

In a civil claim, the hunter hires his own attorney. Hunter pays a lot of attorney fees to possibly prevail in proving to the judge that he was damaged. Probably not a jury trial. State attorney will defend to the ends of time, causing the hunter to have a huge stack of legal costs. Just before trail, state may suggest mediation or settlement, but probably not. State may offer a big public apology, etc in exchange for dropping the case, but maybe not.

Judge may find that hunter has been damaged; or he may not, given there is a "technical" violation of statute. Judge will decide damages, if hunter prevails. Damages will be pretty minimal. Attorneys for both sides will get lectured by the judge for bogging down the courts with a case that falls into the "chit happens" category; a civil case with such a low level of damages.

Hopefully the best that can come of this is that the publicity it garnered will result in a bit more common sense in application of these laws/administrative rules.

I suspect the hunter, if advised by an honest attorney, with "honest" being a key word, would be advised to file an Administrative grievance with the Department, rather than legal action. Administrative filing often results in more change and the costs then become the costs of the agency. An attorney looking for some money and publicity will probably BS the hunter into thinking he can get the hunter some great damages. If such advice is given by the attorney, I would ask if he will take it on a contingency and front all costs. That will smoke out how strong he thinks the case is.

I was faced with taking a wildlife agency (not MT) to court for legal issues, or using the Administrative route. I had no money for attorneys at that time in my life, and my intent was to see change within the agency and some repercussions to the jackass involved, not to try make money or recover possible money lost. I went the Administrative route. Even though it took months, the process worked and resulted in a lot of change to how the agency did things. The jackass got his teeth handed to him by the Director and the committee overseeing such grievances. The dude retired shortly thereafter. Change was my goal and I left it at that. My wife was pissed about it for many years. Everyone told me to sue the state. Doubt I would have prevailed and if I did, nothing good would have come of it. I feel a lot of good came of the route I took Looking back now, I am glad I didn't listen to the people encouraging me to sue.

Might be an alternative worth considering, if you feel compelled to try get more resolution to your situation.

Again, sorry to see this happen.

 

[Point Creep]

Every now and then, stupid people collide...

Right on!

 

[tjones]

What would you prefer, that Jim just bend over and take it up the wazoo like that GW tried to do by not following the law?! .

Top gun do you feel Jim followed the law or does he share in some of the blame for this mess?

 

[Washington Hunter]

The hunter should not have had all the meat taken, and not returned, when the charges were dropped. I think that is what most people have a problem with. It's just not right. The hunter spent a lot of money and time on that elk hunt, and even if he did violate a law, it was very, very minor. The bull NEVER should have been confiscated.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Top gun do you feel Jim followed the law or does he share in some of the blame for this mess?

My feelings are that Jim followed the intent of the law just like it appears most others from Montana are saying they have and could have been in the same boat if an overzealous GW happened by. In my 30 years in a LE capacity with the state of MI if I had made stupid decisions like I feel that GW made that morning I wouldn't have lasted 30 days! Instead of the GW telling him he should have immediately notched the tag and attached it to the carcass in a positive way to build good will with the hunter, he made a very poor decision that is now having negative repercussions for his co-workers and Department across the entire country. I also feel that the GW should be ticketed and/or prosecuted for wanton waste just like anyone else would be if he put that elk in his truck and took it around all day with the high temperature and sun beating down on it like Jim stated happened. I also feel that the GW is not only responsible for not following that law, but is also responsible for not being able to provide the meat to Jim after the case was dismissed since it's their responsibility to store it properly as evidence until the case was adjudicated. The GW asked Jim to bring him the validated tag that was on the carcass because he didn't want to wade through knee deep water and Jim complied. Then he let Jim and his brother haul the animal all the way back to the ranch where he proceeded to confiscate it when there was absolutely no reason for that action in this particular circumstance. There is no way I would suggest that Jim proceed with any type of legal action because of exactly what Randy mentioned. However, I think he should try to have the law changed to state that the tag should be notched and filled out to comply with the law before the animal is dressed out and removed from where it died with the word "immediately" stricken from the statute. That would eliminate any GW from having to make a decision of intent to violate and not tag the animal. Many states don't even require that the animal be tagged until it's out of the field and being transported to a processor or the residence of the hunter. This "immediately" seems ripe for interpretation when most all of us, myself included, may take a number of minutes to unload our rifle, get our gear all together, take photos, etc., with absolutely no intent to violate anything that's on the books. This whole thing stinks and it sounds like now there is a cover up by the videographer who is probably trying to help the Department and keep his contract for future shows intact. One final thing and that is in all the shows I've watched Randy do the last few years, I don't recall seeing him walk up and immediately tag the animals he, his boy, or others shot in Montana, unless that was edited out of the final product and I certainly don't feel Randy or any of his hunting buddies are scofflaws

 

[tjones]

There are always two sides to every story, we have Jim's we may or may not get FWP's side. I would like to hear the "rest of the story"

 

[cowboy]

There are always two sides to every story, we have Jim's we may or may not get FWP's side. I would like to hear the "rest of the story"

Here the rest of the story?

Why not just review the original film clip with those present that Jim has requested - seems reasonable to me - questions answered for all parties.

Anyone think this request by Jim is unreasonable if you were in his shoes?

 

[RobG]

Today the skiing on the Ridge at Bridger was the worst I've seen it, but I can see it still was better than wasting time here. I agree with Buzz's take on it.

 

[noharleyyet]

Why not just review the original film clip with those present that Jim has requested - seems reasonable to me - questions answered for all parties. Anyone think this request by Jim is unreasonable if you were in his shoes?

Nope.....

 

[Zach]

http://youtu.be/8StG4fFWHqg

This trophy up for grabs...

 

[Topgun 30-06]

There are always two sides to every story, we have Jim's we may or may not get FWP's side. I would like to hear the "rest of the story"

So would everyone else and right now the ball is in the court of the Department and the videographer. It appears that what Jim asked for as far as everyone reviewing the film that IMHO seems more than reasonable to vindicate himself is not going to happen. That tells me that what was on that film favors Jim and his statements of what happened and I don't see how anyone could come to a different conclusion. The Prosecutor dropped the case without even viewing any film when it was explained to him what happened when Jim appealed the ticket. That and the reluctance of the Department and company to release the unedited film for viewing is all anyone should need to know to draw a logical conclusion of what the truth is in the matter.

 

[belly-deep]

Hey Buzzy! I don't see a single tag on any animal you have posted up on the MM threads and I know some were taken in Montana! Better practice what you preach there old buddy, LOL!!!

Topgoon,

You're pissing into the wind. Go troll elsewhere.

 

[1_pointer]

I'm almost sorry I decided to read this whole mess this morning. I agree with Buzz and with Big Fin's suggestion as to a possible way to proceed. Asking for a published apology in a specific paper is lame.

It wasn't anything we read! This was televised on the weekly show "Wardens" and it was easy to see everything that went on and like everyone stated, the guy got screwed by a GW that used no common sense or discretion.

Best post of the whole thread! HAHAHAHA!

 

[elkantlers]

I agree that lawyers and court are not the answer. I would however push this as far as I could through the MT G&F and court of public opinion ( news papers, TV ).

If nothing else happens, Hopefully the next officer will think twice about what is an appropriate response and what is WAY over the top.

One things for sure, I bet the office involved wishes he would have called in sick that day. lol

 

[Straight Arrow]

Why would you go to Wyoming G&F regarding a Montana hunting issue?

 

[Washington Hunter]

I disagree with Buzz 100%. It didn't happen to him, so he can't really say what he would do if he was put in the same situation. Buzz seems to think the loss of the meat is insignificant. Well yes, for Buzz maybe it would be, since he lives in Wyoming and kills multiple big game animals every year, and apparently has more meat in his freezer than he can use.

This "mess" is 100% the fault of the state of Montana. I hope the hunter continues to do whatever he needs to do to force the Montana wildlife department to compensate him for what they stole from him. At the very least, he should be given a free elk tag for 2015.

 

[BuzzH]

WH, of course you disagree, you have no experience in these types of issues to draw from.

I have...and that's why I know exactly what I would do.

I lost my biggest mule deer buck to a poaching taxidermist. I had a couple options. I could have taken the deadbeat to court, no doubt "won" the case. But for what? The way courts compensate people is to make them "whole". There would have to be a monitary award given, with deer antlers worth maybe $10-12/lb, that's what I would have gotten. I would not have been awarded the cost of the hunt, or other expenses, or even the trophy value of a 180+ mule deer buck.

The reason why the loss of the meat is insignificant is because again, you're talking about having to assign a value on the meat. What maybe $4/lb for 100 pounds of meat? Assuming the elk wasn't shot through the ass or shoulder first? I can assure you that the odds of recovering even the tag fee would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

I'm pretty good at math, and hiring a lawyer and paying expenses to drive from MN to Montana does not pencil out, in particular over a hundred pounds of raghorn elk meat.

Long way of saying, I have been in nearly the exact same spot and I ended up doing nothing about a taxidermist "losing" a 180+ mule deer buck. Largely because there just wasn't anything there worth dragging the d-bag to court over.

I feel the exact same way with this issue...the hunter got a bad deal but he needs to let it go. man up, and move on. Theres isn't enough here to make it worth the trouble.

 

[Jim-MN-ELK]

Today, 11:56 AM #245
Jim-MN-MT-ELK

This is my last statement on this site.
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=261598&page=6

The people posting on the above site are now writing letters and emails to the FWP. I'm hoping some of you here will do the same. There are a few that think this is a waste of there time and then there are those of you who can see my point. In the end, I just want a couple of changes to the MT hunting regs. I'm not using a lawyer in this fight either. I'm not going to get rich or have my meat re-placed... that is by my choice. But as some of you including Topgun 30-06 and cowboy can see, with nation wide public pressure on poorly written rules there could be a positive change for all hunters. Thanks to all who support us from both forums.


Jim-MN-MT-ELK is online now Registered User

Join Date:Jan 2015Location:Two Harbors, MNPosts:6

Quote Originally Posted by dblungem View Post

Jim, just curious - to your best guess, how much time actually elapsed between you approaching the dead elk and you applying the tag? Don't get me wrong, what was done to you I think was completely wrong. I said earlier in the thread that I could understand a ticket (warning would have been more appropriate I guess) but confiscation of your animal was way over board.

The reason I ask is that My state has similar language of "immediately upon kill" and I always thought there was some room for interpretation on both sides of the coin. There have been a few times where I've walked up on a downed buck, snapped a couple pics with my cell phone, maybe called a buddy for some help, etc. I suppose there have been times when 20 minutes or more may have gone by, especially if somebody was with me on the track, before I affixed the tag. I guess I knew I was not abiding by the law as written, but I also assumed that I wasn't breaking the spirit of the law...if that makes sense. Curious to know your thoughts.
dblungem That's what the warden asked me. He was even going as far as giving me "multiple choice" options, asking me was it 5 mins.? 10, 15, 30??? Still not knowing what type of personality I was dealing with and not knowing that I had been filmed from the moment of kill, I felt pressured to say something... think I said 10 minutes maybe followed by "I don't know". I wasn't keeping track of time. My mind was fully engulfed with this bull, the great fortune to harvest a 6 X 6 just after shooting hours started, where and how it was laying which was going to very difficult to field dress. Then Drew said he saw me take my license out of the breast pocket of my hunting jacket, and then put it back into my back pack. I told him I just put it under the unzipped flap so I could catch some tape my brother was throwing to me. After I had tape in hand, I sat down and notched it... rubbed an area of frost from the left antler (so the tape would stick) and tagged my bull.

Here are some points I need to bring up.

1. Drew questioned my brother when he reached the highway on who shot the elk, "my brother from MN shot one"! He wanted to see Warrens license (which was intact) and.... then he asked Warren "What did you throw to him"? Warren told him he threw me a roll of electrical tape so I could attach the tag to the horns. Note that this exchange was filmed by the cameraman. In my opinion if he was talking to Joe Knarr on the phone as they were watching us, he mistook that action as I was not going to tag this animal. Which means, if Scott had used any common sense that morning he would have seen I was not trying to poach this elk. But in my opinion, he had his mind set that I was guilty. Evidently his superior Mr. Knarr took his word that I was a desperado... and if he told Drew to use his own judgment in this matter, I'm thinking that will be the last time anyone says that to him again. Is THIS their idea of intent on my part to break the law?

2. After he approached me at the kill site, Drew told me "I there's a good chance that I MIGHT loose this elk today" for not tagging immediately, and that carries a $135. fine. At that moment I apologized for my over-site and offer to pay the fine... and asked him "please don't take my elk." He asked me well how do they do it in MN?... etc. I've addressed that in an earlier statement here. Both my brother and I are curious about Drew's statement in using the word MIGHT. Who did he have to check with other than his boss? He then asked if I was going to bring the elk to my brothers ranch and I said yes. He said "That will take you 2 or 3 hours... I'll see you there.

3. Timeline: I killed the elk around 7:55 am. Could only dress it out part way (stomach and intestines) because of how it was laying, rear legs in water, on it's right side with the head higher than the rest of it's body. For one guy to hold up the left rear leg and make the necessary cuts was hard to say the least. Warren was not there to help as he had left the site to get his tractor so we could finish dressing it out in the coral area... and then it moved out of the sun into the barn. It was over 70 degrees at that point. Drew showed up at the ranch and confiscated the elk around 12:00 ~ 12:30. Instead of turning south towards Livingston / Bozeman, he turned north towards Clyde Park. We then saw him drive past again approximately 45 minutes later. So this elk didn't reach any processor for 6 to 7 hours after it died. It was not fully dressed out and it was folded over on itself in the bright sun on a hot day.

4. I've had a business fishing on Lake Superior for 29 years this summer. I've dealt with the MN DNR enforcement officers on a weekly, monthly basis every year. Even the US Coast Guard pulls up alone side now and then for a safety check. The men and women I've talked to during my work routine have ALWAYS been courteous, kind and pleasant to talk with. It's never been my intention here to bad mouth game wardens in general. I'm smarter than that because I know there's always one or two that don't fit the mold in any profession. It is my intention to let the MT FWP know that warden Drew Scott has no business wearing a badge in the field. Sgt. Knarr's actions need to be addressed as well. How about some retraining of the wardens? Or in the field practical screening to see if they can see the whole picture of what is taking place? It won't take long for people to scan these forums or newspaper comments to see that Drew Scott's name comes up a lot... and that he appears to have "issues."

5. All of this would never have reached the point it has, had Mr. Scott used common sense and given me a written warning instead of taking my elk. And I already said, I had offered to pay the fine. I think it's also very easy to see that having a reality TV show cameraman riding around in FWP pick ups is a bad idea. They say these cameraman are trained to be a "fly on the wall" and that they never put pressure on the wardens to do their job. That may be true. But anyone with a camera in their face will acted differently and in this case, the warden put pressure on himself to get the bust for the TV show. He didn't even have to get dirty or wet doing so. I've been told that this episode will never be aired on TV. I've also been told that Warren and I will be able to see the unedited version as it was filmed. With my email to the owner/producer of the "Wardens" yesterday, it will make at least 4 requests for us to see this video. The FWP has seen the first part so I hear, so why not us? I was also told that the second part of the video (filmed at the ranch) had "Some Technical Issues." What does THAT mean? As I see it, the FWP knows exactly what took place that day and they don't want us to see the evidence that backs up our story. And Hey!!! If I'm wrong... SHOW ME.

Lastly and with your help here and in the other forums we can get a few things changed for the good of all hunters in the future. Stand with us in this battle and let the MT FWP and the Montana State Senate and House know your views. In the end, if we are successful, I will be able to look at my Bull Elk 6 X 6 European mount (I'm not finished with it yet) and feel better knowing that this animal brought forth a huge change in the MT hunting regs. As it stands right now, all I see is a bad day for me and my bull.