Birddog Report post Posted December 22, 2008 Sorry guys but I’m glad they threw the book at him. I don’t want anyone shooting that close to my house and I am sure many of you feel the same. He was shooting WITHIN 400 yards of houses! And I’m sure he was using a high caliber rifle. If Malik can pay 135,000 for a tag in Az I’m sure he won’t miss out on hunting the other states that will let him hunt. The only thing that doesn’t make since to me is why the 14,995 for the “states loss of the 408-point, velvet-antlered elk”. He already paid for 1 elk. From the picture it looked like a 14-point. John McClendon got off easy! He should have known better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cdenton Report post Posted December 22, 2008 How does a guy get the shaft if he broke the law and got busted for it? It's only the guides responsibility to know where they are hunting at. That's a bunch of garbage. He broke the law and got what he deserved. Should McClendon have got in trouble, of course he should of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Huntn coues Report post Posted December 23, 2008 this guy could hunt any public land in Az for one year. he could shoot any elk he saw, anytime he saw it, anyplace he saw it, for one calendar year, starting aug 1. so he waited until the last few days of the year long season and shot a half tame bull in a subdivision. a bull that was on it's way onto public land to bed for the day. a bull that he could have waited a few minutes to shoot and nothing would have happened. he deserves at least what he got. this ain't a hunt. he paid big bucks for information as to the whereabouts of the elk, flew in and shot it. like i've said all along, if you have to rely on a tape measure to know if you're legal or not, you might oughta think twice about the shot. this is one time i'm on the azgfd's side. and that ain't often. he could have done any one of dozens of other things and been legal. he could have hunted earlier in the year. he could have hunted in some wild country and had a real experience. he could have hunted anywhere in the state. during the rut, in the winter time, late winter, any one of innumerable ways and places. real hunts. instead he shot a bull in a subdivision and got pinched for it. and did a completely miserable job of shooting. no hunting was involved here. no skill was used. another guy with a lot of money that thought the laws pertained to only the little people. this is another good reason to do away with the auction tags. Lark. If there was any way possible to disagree with this statement above any more than I do, I'd actually PAY to be able to say it on here without it getting nuked in about 2 seconds here on CWT. It actually made me chuckle. PM me and I will send you my mailing address and I'll say it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coues Report post Posted December 23, 2008 So what is this "the commission voted to civilly assess Malik $14,995 for the state’s loss of the 408-point" crap? The state didn't lose a 408" elk, the guy already had paid $130,000 for it. Not that the guy can't afford the fine, but to me it looks like the state got paid twice for the same elk. (Maybe they refunded the $130,000?) Mark He didn't pay for this elk, or any elk for that matter. He paid for the OPPORTUNITY to hunt elk as prescribed in the regs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Psychozar Report post Posted December 23, 2008 Isn't this same same outfitter in contraversy every year. Remember that big 430+ bull killed on the Verde River last year? Rumor has it that these outfitters had the Gov. tag holder all over this bull. This bull lived in a river bottom that is choked full of development. Homes ,human inhabitation and safety not deterrents taken into factor. The successful hunter was a legitimately licensed archery hunter in an archery only zone. Congrats! What would happen if the Gov. tag holder shot that bull in this archery only zone? Me thinkest that the hunter would be in a heep of trouble as is the above mentioned. The outfitter, ...innocent as a virgin! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted December 23, 2008 what i don't understand is why folks have a problem with a guy who broke the law gettin' hammered? does the amount of money a guy has have something to do with how folks interpret the law? this guy had legal representation, got tried in a court of law and was convicted of breaking the law by a duly appointed judge. seems to me like the system worked. he can appeal it if he wants. but it doesn't seem he wants to. oh, and Merry Christmas everbuddy. Lark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birddog Report post Posted December 23, 2008 So what is this "the commission voted to civilly assess Malik $14,995 for the state’s loss of the 408-point" crap? The state didn't lose a 408" elk, the guy already had paid $130,000 for it. Not that the guy can't afford the fine, but to me it looks like the state got paid twice for the same elk. (Maybe they refunded the $130,000?) Mark He didn't pay for this elk, or any elk for that matter. He paid for the OPPORTUNITY to hunt elk as prescribed in the regs. I think you missed the point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yeti-az Report post Posted December 23, 2008 Sad situation. Malik has spent millions of dollars in this state to hunt. I heard that he actually shot the bull from a legal distance from the houses but the bull ran closer after the shot. Who knows what the truth really is? I did also hear that the G&F officer lied about what he had told the hunter and guide. Again, just what i heard. I know for a fact that these officers are trained in interogation tactics and use them in the field. It's good know the law and your rights when hunting in the field. What they can and can't do, legally. Anyway, terrible for all involved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
COOSEFAN Report post Posted December 23, 2008 If I'm not mistaken the AZ law has been 1/4 mile from any occupied structure as long as I can remember. I'm sure his home state of Michigan has a very similar law. If this dummy can afford to pay $135,000 for a tag he certainly should be able to read to laws. Does it suck that some of the biggest animals always seem to be camped on some anti-hunters front yard? Yes, but the law is the law. It no different for any of the rest of us...should he be shown special consideration cause he paid so much money? Heck no....just think of the extra $15k as a trophy fee. As for the guide his guide license should have been revoked for the term that the hunter got. I have never taken the AZ guide test nor will I ever but the requirement to pass the ethics portion must consist of just being able to spell your name. Some of the biggest law breakers and poachers I have ever known seem to always have a current AZ guide license. THEN WHY AREN'T YOU TURNING THEM IN???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted December 24, 2008 If he spent millions then he hunted more than anybody I know in this state, that would represent a few Gov tags and a ton of regular hunts. There's always another millionaire waiting in the wings if you falter. John McClendon has a good reputation, I've never met him but we have mutual friends and I believe them when they speak highly of him as a person. Shawn Wagner is also a good person, lives in the area, friendly in the field, and has no problem coming to your camp at night to check your bear and shoot the breeze if you know someone with his cell #. What lie could Shawn have told them? Those aren't houses right there, go ahead and keep chasing and shooting that bull till you kill him. I hope that wasn't their court defense, putting the blame on someone else when you were doing something stupid in the first place is just adding more stupid. G&F isn't going to look kindly on it either. I just don't understand the shooting in a subdivision decision, even if they stayed 441yds away. Waking people up with gunshots and chasing an elk around their back yards. Bad PR for all hunters. They should have just admitted it was stupid, got out of hand and not fought it in court so they could get the bull back. Probably would have only had to pay a fine and lost the animal. There are times I go into town while hunting to eat for a break from my cooking. People see the camos and ask. "What are you hunting"? "Elk" (ect) I say. "We have a bunch in our neighborhood, they eat the plants and trample everything, come over and kill some". they say. My answer is always, "I don't think someone wants me gutting an elk in their back yard under the swingset". it's a joke but also true. I don't think those people in Lakeside understood the joke they witnessed. Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZantlerhead Report post Posted December 24, 2008 Yes, it's an unfortunate circumstance surrounding that Bull .I live 10 miles from where he was shot and Hundreds of people knew about him(every G&F as well) and every hunter and scout was gunning for him.(of course he was shot two weeks before everyone elses hunts started) I went to majestics taxidermy where the G&F was keeping the bull to have a look at him, a 418 inch bull with a nontypical 17 inch droptine, in full velvet.A trully awesome sight, I hadn't seen him on the hoof but know many that did. A sad situation for such a unique Monster Bull. I'm not takeing sides, I was not there(that day) , but I'm willing to bet the officer who investigated was not coincidentally within range of THAT Hunter and THAT Bull . AS well It was not a coincidence that he was taken very near private property . If you ask me both the law and the hunter are in the grey zone here. Hopefully both parties were heard by the judge and justice was served. And I hope they put the mount in the pinetop G&F office to display if they do keep it in the end. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coues Archer Report post Posted December 26, 2008 Sucks for him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
