Commissioner Pleads Not Guilty

[bonuspointjohn]

Commissioner Jack Husted entered a plea of not guilty after being cited on a hunting violation that he was part of. The Commissioner did the honorable thing and turned himself in, but was not happy that he has fines coming and entered a plea of not guilty for his day in court. Since I have been labeled PBJ by the masses in CWT, perhaps commissioner Husted will now be PDJ.... Prairie Dog Jack.....Glad he did the right thing, hope it all turns out well for him

[Coach]

There's another topic discussing this, and it is definately an interesting situation.

 

First and foremost, I applaud Mr. Husted for his honesty. He wasn't pressured into coming clean - he chose to do so. I also applaud G&F on their decision. They found themselves in the "ultimate catch 22". On the one hand, you've got a person (let's just pretend he's not on the commission, for now) voluntarily admitting to what we would all probably agree is a minor infraction. For starters, most people don't even know there is a small window that it's illegal to shoot Gunnison Prairer dogs. Secondly, he wasn't even the person that shot the prairer dog in question - it was a youth hunter he was accompanying.

 

But the rules clearly state that "take" does not necessarly mean actually "killing" anything, it is broadly defined by "persuit". And persuit, as I have found, is an extremely open term. According to the law, you are unlawfully "taking" game if you are even there with the intent to take game. I'd be happy to expound on that via PM.

 

Back to the quandry G&F found themselves in. On the one hand, it's a minor infraction, even a technicality. If they persue and follow, to the letter of the law, you'll find a lot of people upset that they "threw the book" at someone who was just trying to be honest. On the other hand, if they dismiss it, you'll have an equal number of people upset that they gave special treatment to the individual because he was acting as a G&F commissioner and turned a blind eye.

 

There is no way boots on the ground G&F wins in this situation. How would you like to be the officer who didn't even witness these events, but still had to testify against your boss's boss (and maybe then more bosses)? No matter what direction they take, they are going to come out in a bad light.

 

So, the most honorable thing they can possibly do is follow the "letter of the law". They have to discount the fact that this guy did the right thing by coming to them and admitting an honest mistake and even harder, they have to omit the fact that he is at the very top of the chain of command in their organization.

 

That's a very hard situation to be in the middle of. From the standpoint of all of us hunters, his actions might not have been "technically legal", but even he didn't know he was breaking the law at the time he was doing it. I've shot p-dogs all summer as a way to sight in guns in years past. I didn't know there was any difference between shooting a prairie dog or ground squirrel or setting a mouse trap in my garage. Rodents must die.

 

Personally, I'd drop any and all charges against the guy. We've got enough intentional poaching to reign in before I'd go after the guy who made an honest mistake and openly admitted it. On the other hand, every time I go on a job interview and fill out an application, I have to list the time I made an honest mistake and openly admitted it, and it was right along side of what what this guy is going through.

 

If you think only those intentionally breaking the law find themselves on the other side of the law, I and Mr. Husted would disagree.

[firstcoueswas80]

If they drop any/all charges they open them selves up to every other person who has turned themselves in, and then been tried and/or penalized for their infraction to have a law suit against them.

 

They need to go at is within the letter of the law. No breaks or special actions just because of who he is.

[bigorange]

There's another topic discussing this, and it is definately an interesting situation.

 

First and foremost, I applaud Mr. Husted for his honesty. He wasn't pressured into coming clean - he chose to do so. I also applaud G&F on their decision. They found themselves in the "ultimate catch 22". On the one hand, you've got a person (let's just pretend he's not on the commission, for now) voluntarily admitting to what we would all probably agree is a minor infraction. For starters, most people don't even know there is a small window that it's illegal to shoot Gunnison Prairer dogs. Secondly, he wasn't even the person that shot the prairer dog in question - it was a youth hunter he was accompanying.

 

But the rules clearly state that "take" does not necessarly mean actually "killing" anything, it is broadly defined by "persuit". And persuit, as I have found, is an extremely open term. According to the law, you are unlawfully "taking" game if you are even there with the intent to take game. I'd be happy to expound on that via PM.

 

Back to the quandry G&F found themselves in. On the one hand, it's a minor infraction, even a technicality. If they persue and follow, to the letter of the law, you'll find a lot of people upset that they "threw the book" at someone who was just trying to be honest. On the other hand, if they dismiss it, you'll have an equal number of people upset that they gave special treatment to the individual because he was acting as a G&F commissioner and turned a blind eye.

 

There is no way boots on the ground G&F wins in this situation. How would you like to be the officer who didn't even witness these events, but still had to testify against your boss's boss (and maybe then more bosses)? No matter what direction they take, they are going to come out in a bad light.

 

So, the most honorable thing they can possibly do is follow the "letter of the law". They have to discount the fact that this guy did the right thing by coming to them and admitting an honest mistake and even harder, they have to omit the fact that he is at the very top of the chain of command in their organization.

 

That's a very hard situation to be in the middle of. From the standpoint of all of us hunters, his actions might not have been "technically legal", but even he didn't know he was breaking the law at the time he was doing it. I've shot p-dogs all summer as a way to sight in guns in years past. I didn't know there was any difference between shooting a prairie dog or ground squirrel or setting a mouse trap in my garage. Rodents must die.

 

Personally, I'd drop any and all charges against the guy. We've got enough intentional poaching to reign in before I'd go after the guy who made an honest mistake and openly admitted it. On the other hand, every time I go on a job interview and fill out an application, I have to list the time I made an honest mistake and openly admitted it, and it was right along side of what what this guy is going through.

 

If you think only those intentionally breaking the law find themselves on the other side of the law, I and Mr. Husted would disagree.

 

Very good analysis Coach...that's a tough spot to be in.

 

[billrquimby]

Coach has said it all most eloquently. I'm guessing the judge -- and not the game department -- will consider it a waste of time and refuse to hear the case.

 

Bill Quimby

[CouesWhitetail]

Coach has said it all most eloquently. I'm guessing the judge -- and not the game department -- will consider it a waste of time and refuse to hear the case.

 

Bill Quimby

 

 

That would be a nice way out for the dept and Mr. Husted.

[AZLance]

Game and Fish = Dog and Pony show...

[couesdiehard]

Unfortunately, ignorance of the law is no defense. As I said before, kudos to Commissioner Husted for coming clean and admitting he committed a violation when he realized it. I am a little curious what his defense will be when it is well-documented now that he admitted unknowingly committing the offense. I'm afraid that he will be found not guilty or the case will be thrown out by his local court (Round Valley). It gives the wrong signal to those who are less honest. I believe I would have plead guilty (since I already admitted it to law enforcement, wouldn't want my integrity questioned) and then ask the court for a reduced fine. To me that is taking the high road.

Lee

[firstcoueswas80]

I am a little confused by the admitting it, then pleading not guilty. As has been said, that is probably his game plan for getting off with no punishment. I wouldn't have a problem with that, as he came forward and admitted it, but we all KNOW that if John Doe off the street did the same thing the AZGFD would not take it so lightly.

[twigsnapper]

Not sure what his maximum punishment could be but my feeling is the G&F should use this case as an example since it's getting so much attention. I think he should receive a reduce penalty. The G&F would get much more respect if they said hey "you mess up and let us know about it and we will be reasonable but if you try to hide it or violate the law with ill intent and we're gonna get the bat out and make sure you don't do it again." G&F is in a sticky situation, some of us see it as a prairie dog, but there are others out there that think the prairie dog should be able to vote for president and have gov provided healthcare. And those that feel this way are waiting in the shadows ready to throw some BS lawsuit at the G&F for not protecting wildlife.

[AxisWorks LLC]

Where can you find the info on prariedog seasons in AZ. They arent listed in the regs under small game, or fur bearer species.

 

Thanks,

Speedy.

[archerycrazy]

I am not at all confused by the actions Jack has taken. As soon as he realized that he had violated a rule, he immeadiately went to the Dicerctor and reported it. The Director odered a full investigation. The investigation was properly conducted with Jack's full cooperation. He was properly cited and now Jack is excercising his rights under the law. He isn ow being subjected to the bs court of public opinion. He will soon have a opportunity to present his case in the only court that counts, a court of law. By no means is the Department taking this lightly.

 

Let's look at this under slightly different circumstances. Jack is in the field helping a youngster hunt rabbits. A Wildlife Manager (WM) is in the area and witnesses Jack assist the youngster in the killing of a prairie dog. The WM contacts Jack and advises him of the violation. The WM has two difficult choices 1. cite Jack or, 2. look the other way because he knows Jack is a Commissioner. Jack now has several options. 1. The WM cites properly cites Jack, Jack accepts the citation and pleads not guily in order to have his day in court. 2. The WM offers to look the other way. Jack demands a ctitation and chews out the WM. 3. WM doesn't cite Jack. Jack goes home, calls the director and reports his violation and the action taken by the WM. An ivestigation is conducted and Jack is cited and the WM is in trouble

 

In any case this was a no win situation in the court of public opinion.

[archerycrazy]

Speedy,

Pages 84-85 of the 2012-2013 Arizona Hunting and Trapping Regulations.

[couesdiehard]

I am not at all confused by the actions Jack has taken. As soon as he realized that he had violated a rule, he immeadiately went to the Dicerctor and reported it. The Director odered a full investigation. The investigation was properly conducted with Jack's full cooperation. He was properly cited and now Jack is excercising his rights under the law. He isn ow being subjected to the bs court of public opinion. He will soon have a opportunity to present his case in the only court that counts, a court of law. By no means is the Department taking this lightly.

 

Let's look at this under slightly different circumstances. Jack is in the field helping a youngster hunt rabbits. A Wildlife Manager (WM) is in the area and witnesses Jack assist the youngster in the killing of a prairie dog. The WM contacts Jack and advises him of the violation. The WM has two difficult choices 1. cite Jack or, 2. look the other way because he knows Jack is a Commissioner. Jack now has several options. 1. The WM cites properly cites Jack, Jack accepts the citation and pleads not guily in order to have his day in court. 2. The WM offers to look the other way. Jack demands a ctitation and chews out the WM. 3. WM doesn't cite Jack. Jack goes home, calls the director and reports his violation and the action taken by the WM. An ivestigation is conducted and Jack is cited and the WM is in trouble

 

In any case this was a no win situation in the court of public opinion.

Talk about the BS of public opinion. Let's stick to the facts of what happened according Mr. Husted's own words instead of hypothesizing on all the variables of what could of happened. Whatever the Court in Round Valley decides I'll abide by it, even if I don't agree with it. I will state my opinion of it until I'm blue in the face good, bad, or otherwise. That's my right. This is a matter of public record as are all cited game violations, we on this site didn't make it so, the Law did. Let me reiterate, I give kudos to Mr. Husted for owning up to a mistake when nobody was watching, and I wish him the best.

But the same ethics that told him he should report it, are the same ethics that should tell him to face the music. Again, just my very public opinion.

Lee

[Outdoor Writer]

The process is pretty simple:

 

Once Hulsted admitted he violated the law, G&F investigated and rightly cited him. G&F is now OUT OF THE LOOP!

 

Hulsted then had two options: admit guilt by paying the set fine or plead not guilty, thus bring his case before a judge where he can state HIS facts of what occurred. Of course, the judge can consider any mitigating circumstances that Hulsted might have brought to light, thus his reason to plead NOT GUILTY. At that point, it will be up to a judge to decide his guilt or innocence. If the judge finds him guilty, he also has the task of assessing any penalty/fine.

 

The next step, which is highly unlikely to happen, is consideration of further penalty by the game commission, BUT...this can ONLY happen if there is an adjudication of GUILTY in the courtroom. If the judge finds Hulsted innocent, it's done! That said, I doubt the commission will take it any further, even if Hulsted is found guilty.

 

 

Speedygoss,

 

Here's the season on the dogs. Click for larger view and note the section that is a bit yellowish: