Sponser

[25-06]

Bill,

 

Are you referring to the King buck.

 

Dsertsheep

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The king buck is what I would guess he's talkin about...and I also believe it was taken legally.

[desertsheep]

I am not wanting to start a pissing match here,but if it was taken legally why does the state have the buck. I know if I had taken a 159 coues you could'nt pry that buck from my cold dead fingers.

 

Desertsheep

[billrquimby]

I am not wanting to start a pissing match here,but if it was taken legally why does the state have the buck. I know if I had taken a 159 coues you could'nt pry that buck from my cold dead fingers.

 

Desertsheep

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I may be wrong, but as I understand and remember it, the court dismissed all criminal charges. The Game and Fish Commission then assessed an exhorbitant civil penalty, which he could not pay. He had his choice of hiring another attorney to fight the penalty or "selling" the antlers to Game and Fish for the amount of the penalty. He'd already run up a pile of legal fees so an agreement was reached that would allow the antlers to be put on public display. You can see them at the SCI museum in Tucson.

 

The original charges smelled to high heaven. As I remember from reporting on the case for t he Tucson Citizen years ago, an "expert" testified that from the angle of the shadows the kill shot photo was made in August .... but there was no velvet on that buck's antlers. There were other things that smelled, too, but I've forgotten them. The judge apparently felt Game and Fish had no case.

 

BillQ

[fatfootdoc]

I dont think I have ever heard about that story, What happened! AG

[.270]

how can they hit you with civil charges on a deal like that when the original charges were dropped? i remember reading a bunch about the deal when it happened and it was a railroad job from the beginning. seems like the guy had several complete sets of sheds from the buck too. the guy that "turned" him in seemed like some jealous anal orifice that was trying to get the same buch and didn't. whatever, anytime someone kills a new record the azgfd tries to make it a crime. look at all that allan ellsworth went through when he bought the winters bull. he ended up taking the rack out of state and hiding it for fear that the azgfd would take it away and not give it back. Lark.

[25-06]

I think Dan is the KING of coues...That being said, I dont think someone with a reputation like his would go out and poach

[Red Rabbit]

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID19/461.html

 

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID19/437.html

 

The above links are to a couple of past threads on Monster Muleys about the King Buck. I'm sure some of you remember them.

 

RR

[Chef]

Sweet find RR!

 

Here is more info on the buck...184 7/8"

http://kingguideservice.net/page12.html

 

 

 

[desertsheep]

I don't believe that every time someone kills a WR or a giant animal azgfd has it out for them or tries to take their animal. I read the whole King thing years ago's. It's only my opinion but if the King buck was truly on the up & up he would have the deer. I do know that hunting has turned into big money, sponsers, guns ,camo , free hunts, T.v. , video's. MONEY HAS MADE PEOPLE DO CRAZIER THINGS THAN POACH.

 

Desertsheep

[billrquimby]

"how can they hit you with civil charges on a deal like that when the original charges were dropped?"

 

Ask O.J. Simpson about the difference between civil and criminal trials. As I remember it, there wasn't a regular civil trial, only a Game and Fish Commission hearing held in Yuma where an "assessment" was slapped on the hunter for the state's loss of an animal that AGFD never proved was illegally taken.

 

The amount, as I remember it, was something like $10,000, and it was based on a trophy appraiser's estimate of the value of the antlers.

 

I don't know whether the deer was poached or not, but the court agreed that AGFD did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute.

 

Imposing that assessment after failing to find the hunter guilty in criminal court seems chicken #%@ to me.

 

BillQ

[25-06]

I don't know whether the deer was poached or not, but the court agreed that AGFD did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute.

 

Imposing that assessment after failing to find the hunter guilty in criminal court seems chicken #%@ to me. 

 

BillQ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said Bill.......