Dirty tactics once again from the AZGFD! Now you'll know why to never trust them

[Outlaw87]

maybe they should start putting all there employees pictures on the trailer of shame they bring to the sportsmens expo bunch of crooked SOBs I'm sure Obama would be proud of our G&F haha

[Heat]

I almost can't believe this, but I know it is true. This needs to be investigated for sure! Shame on anyone involved! This is beyond ridiculous!

[biglakejake]

flush 'em all and use godwin for the wipe...

 

lee

[bonecollector777]

"The Attorney General’s Office has jurisdiction over Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act, white collar crime, organized crime, public corruption, environmental laws, civil rights laws, and crimes committed in more than one county. Additionally, this Office prosecutes cases normally handled by county attorneys when they have a conflict."

 

From the State Attorney Generals Office web-site....I thinks this falls right in the jurisdiction wheel house...with enough presure they just might take this up.

I took what I wrote originally to start this post and modified it to be a little more professional and sent it to the governor (since she appoints a lot of the higher up guys) and some news stations. Now that I know about the Attorney Generals office I am in the process of writing an email to Tom Horne at the moment. I think if we all keep passing it around and getting it to the right people something will be done.

[ProSlayer]

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

[bonecollector777]

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

Get out of here you GandF lover. Sue us all for posting facts with court papers to back it up. Tell all your buddies there at AZGFD it's time for some clean up in the department.

[couesmagnet]

At least wagner or the others weren't trying to be sneeky about it. It seems they told enough people in the g and f about it as it was going on. I'm not saying i agree with any of it, but at least it was done in a forthcoming way. I'm glad for the elk, at least he didn't have to suffer another minute. The game and fish should be able to make certain judgement calls within their ranks. They can't allow us as the public to make those judgement calls, cause it opens up to many loop holds for poachers. I'm not trying to defend or justify what took place, but i'm ok with the game and fish making a judgement call like this one seeing that they (the game and fish) had one of their own there at the scene. When i first read the news i too became bitter about the whole deal, but that's only because i wish i had the same lee way to make the same judgement call. Sounds like wagner did what we all wish we could do if the same situation came up.

[bonecollector777]

Sounds like you are doing just that. Defending game and fish and justifying it. So far you are the only one on various websites to think this was completely ok. Even being game and fish doesn't mean they have the right to change the law in the moment for their benefit. There are various laws they broke. Never at any point is an officer allowed to break a law and it be ok. You and I both know that.

[Non-Typical Solutions]

I'm guessing that is what riles most of us.....wishing that same kind of leeway.....except, there was the decision to "leave the tag"....that is not a mistaken doe shot.......or a kids tag in his dad's pack...........that is a thought out, pre meditated violation of the law.....not just accidental.........committed by the upholder of the law.

 

The preachers kids are always held to a higher standard..........

[bonecollector777]

I totally agree non-typical, and I wouldn't even say held at a higher standard but we simply want them to held at the same standard as all of us!
E.
Except as permitted under R12-4-217 (this only refers to when someone gives their tag to their kid) , an individual shall
not:1.
Allow their tag to be attached to wildlife killed by
another individual, BROKE THIS ONE
2.
Allow their tag to be possessed by another individ
-
ual who is in a hunt area, BROKE THIS ONE
3.
Attach their tag to wildlife killed by another individ
-
ual, BROKE THIS ONE
4.
Attach a tag issued to another individual to wildlife, BROKE THIS ONE
or
5.
Possess a tag issued to another individual while in a
hunt area. BROKE THIS ONE

 

That's five broken laws directly out of the regs starting the moment Wagner let his tag be possessed by someone else that night

[couesmagnet]

I agree with all you guys it was wrong, and that's a fact. It's just that all these laws that have been created to stem poaching where created to do just that, stem poaching. From not being able to tag an animal you wounded after the season even if it's only a day after to several others, it's frustrating indeed. All i'm saying is that the whole deal revolves around retrieving a wounded animal, and i'm all for an individual retrieving a mortally wounded animal and it not going to waste or worse yet never found and another animal on top of the one lost being harvested. In this case cause they were honest about what had happened and because they told several of their supervisors of the situation, i'm personally ok with what happened. By the way you can read my initial response to this whole thing on rutnhard, where it too jumped in with my negativity. This one's just hard to swallow because the one's that did it are the one's handing out citations for the same thing. Again, at least it was done in the light, and permission was granted to do so, i just wish i had a person to call to give me authorization to do the same but i don't. Oh well!!!

[bonecollector777]

I agree with all you guys it was wrong, and that's a fact. It's just that all these laws that have been created to stem poaching where created to do just that, stem poaching. From not being able to tag an animal you wounded after the season even if it's only a day after to several others, it's frustrating indeed. All i'm saying is that the whole deal revolves around retrieving a wounded animal, and i'm all for an individual retrieving a mortally wounded animal and it not going to waste or worse yet never found and another animal on top of the one lost being harvested. In this case cause they were honest about what had happened and because they told several of their supervisors of the situation, i'm personally ok with what happened. By the way you can read my initial response to this whole thing on rutnhard, where it too jumped in with my negativity. This one's just hard to swallow because the one's that did it are the one's handing out citations for the same thing. Again, at least it was done in the light, and permission was granted to do so, i just wish i had a person to call to give me authorization to do the same but i don't. Oh well!!!

THEY DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE LAW. EVER. THEY SIMPLY ARE TO ENFORCE IT.

[tomgobbler]

redman,

when my little brother first started hunting and was 10 or 11 had his first javy tag i was also carring it, and we were hunting together and were stopped , and i NOT ONLY GOT AN EARFULL I GOT A CITATION AND HAD TO GO TO COURT. for possessing the big game tag of another!!! yep POSSESSING a big game tag fo someone else, my 10 year old brother who i was mentoring and hunting with!!!.. wagner BROKE the law when he handed it over to someone else. plain and simple!

[THE RIFLEMAN]

Its ironic that certain people like to see other people get into trouble and claim a fame in the mud slinging....The one saying seems to holds true is what go's round come's round...The same folks who are throwing the stones and slinging accusations usually end up at the bottom of the rock pile sometime in the future!!!!

[couesmagnet]

Well said bonecollector, and i agree with you, but it's sad when a judgement call can't be made within the same agency used to enforce the law, especially when everything is put out into the light and up front. The intended use of all these laws is to stop poaching, it's just sad that judgement calls can't be made within a certain law while still maintaining the "spirit" of that same law.