Costly mistake, hunter shoots "-" sheep

[yotebuster]

I think this is right on the money. The guy screwed up and poached. He killed $32,000 worth of sheep and needs to pay for it. He self reported because he knew that two dead sheep laying in the hills with his bullet in them and a third gut pile with his tag on it would get him in trouble. Imagine if he shot a person in his haste? He would get manslaughfer and be sitting in jail for a long time because he didn't do things right. Crappy deal for a guy that went out without motive. Kind of, but this is why we need to be so careful when in the field, it's serious business! I know I personally have missed opportunities at big critters because I didn't have a clear shot, and I've missed others and not shot again because I was uncertain of whether or not it was the same animal. This guy got to excited and didn't give a crap. He wanted a dead sheep at all costs and he got in trouble for it. Worst case scenario the guy coulda walked over there, looked for blood and relized he missed, and got another sheep a different day. Instead he pushed the envelope and cost the taxpayers a LOT of money and he needs to pay for it. As far as being labeled a poacher and being butt hurt about it, he needs to man up to what he did. He is a poacher. Maybe not premeditated but he let his excitement get in his way and that caused him to make a mistake that made him a poacher. I've been caught not paying attention to the speedometer a few times and had to pay a fine and had my name go on public record as a criminal because I wasn't paying attention. Did I throw a fit? Nope. I paid the fine and was lucky no one got hurt because I owned up to my mistake. In my opinion he's extremely luck he got to keep the first sheep he shot. This sets a bad precedent for the future. Say a guy shoots a 160" ram on the last day and as he's approaching it his 190" buddy stands up that he hadn't seen. He could easily kill the second ram and say it was a mistake that he shot the 160 ram knowing that for $30k he could get out of it.

[mattys281]

Where does this $32k valuation come from? In az its $300ish for residents and less than $2k for a non res to get a tag. How can you charge somebody that much money for accidentally killing an animal he could legally kill for a fraction of the cost? It did not cost the state an extra $30k to have a game warden drive out there and investigate and to file a couple court docs and give this guy 15 minutes in front of the judge.

 

This is way excessive and this guy got railroaded bad. That'll teach him to be honest with the government.

 

I had a lawyer tell me once, if you shoot an armed man in your home in the middle of the night, you call me first and the police second.

[firstcoueswas80]

32000 is a cheap Governors tag!

[Lucafu1]

I was asking questions about dead heads at the Tucson AZGFD office when I was checking in my ram. The supervisor told me that they charge a fine of $8k for our sheep when poached and that's why it's important to call anythung in so they can check it out and possibly get evedience.

[trophyseeker]

Many states, including AZ, have laws that designate MANDATORY amounts for critters. Here's some info.

 

First, from Montana, where this case took place.

 

87-6-906. Restitution for illegal killing, possession, or waste of certain wildlife. (1) Except as provided in 87-6-907 and in addition to other penalties provided by law, a person convicted or forfeiting bond or bail on a charge of the illegal taking, killing, possession, or waste of a wild bird, mammal, or fish listed in this section shall reimburse the state for each bird, mammal, or fish according to the following schedule:
(a mountain sheep and endangered species, $2,000;
(b elk, caribou, bald eagle, black bear, wolf, and moose, $1,000;
(c mountain lion, lynx, wolverine, buffalo, golden eagle, osprey, falcon, antlered deer as defined by commission regulation, bull trout longer than 18 inches, and adult buck antelope as defined by commission regulation, $500;
(d deer not included in subsection (1)©, antelope not included in subsection (1)©, fisher, raptor not included in subsection (1)©, swan, bobcat, white sturgeon, river-dwelling grayling, and paddlefish, $300;
(e fur-bearing animals that are not listed in subsection (1)© or (1)(d), $100;
(f game bird (except swan), $25;
(g game fish, $10.
(2) When a court enters an order declaring bond or bail to be forfeited, the court may also order that some or all of the forfeited bond or bail be paid as restitution to the state according to the schedule in subsection (1). A hearing to determine the amount of restitution, as required under 46-9-512, is not required for an order of restitution under this section.

 

87-6-907. Restitution for illegal killing, possession, or waste of trophy wildlife. In addition to other penalties provided by law, a person convicted or forfeiting bond or bail on a charge of purposely or knowingly illegally killing, taking, possessing, or wasting a trophy animal listed in this section shall reimburse the state for each trophy animal according to the following schedule:
(1) mountain sheep with at least one horn equal to or greater than a three-fourth curl as defined by commission regulation, $30,000;
(2) elk with at least six points on one antler, as defined by commission regulation, or any grizzly bear, $8,000;
(3) moose having antlers with a total spread of at least 30 inches, as defined by commission regulation, or any mountain goat, $6,000;
(4) antlered deer with at least four points on one antler as defined by commission regulation, $8,000;
(5) antelope with at least one horn greater than 14 inches in length as defined by commission regulation, $2,000.

 

Under Colorado's Sampson's Law:

 

The fines for poaching trophy-size animals, as defined by the following measurements, are:
• Pronghorn antelope with a horn length of 14 inches or more $4,000
• Bull elk with six or more points on an antler beam $10,000
• Whitetail deer buck with an inside antler spread of 18 inches or more $10,000
• Mule deer buck with an inside antler spread of 22 inches or more $10,000
• Any bull moose $10,000
• Any mountain goat $10,000
• Bighorn sheep with a horn length of one-half curl or more $25,000

 

 

This from Arizona's Title 17:

 

17-314. Civil liability for illegally taking or wounding wildlife; recovery of damages

 

A. The commission or any officer charged with enforcement of the laws relating to game and fish, if so directed by the commission, may bring a civil action in the name of the state against any person unlawfully taking, wounding or killing, or unlawfully in possession of, any of the following wildlife, or part thereof, and seek to recover the following minimum sums as damage:

 

1. For each turkey or javelina $500.00
2. For each bear, mountain lion, antelope or deer, other than trophy $1,500.00
3. For each elk or eagle, other than trophy or endangered species $2,500.00
4. For each predatory, fur-bearing or nongame animal $ 250.00
5. For each small game or aquatic wildlife animal $ 50.00
6. For each trophy or endangered species animal $8,000.00

 

B. No verdict or judgment recovered by the state in such action shall be for less than the sum fixed in this section. The minimum sum that the commission may seek to recover as damages from a person pursuant to this section may be doubled for a second verdict or judgment and tripled for a third verdict or judgment. The action for damages may be joined with an action for possession, and recovery had for the possession as well as the damages.

 

 

Now here's an interesting tidbit at how the AZGFD would view this incident in regards to "poaching"

 

Are all violations for unlawful take of wildlife considered “poaching?”

Poaching is considered to be the theft of wildlife resources from the public trust. The term “poaching” carries certain connotations with the public. Unintentional or inadvertent take of wildlife, particularly when self-reported, is not considered poaching. It can be said that, while all poaching is illegal take, not all illegal take is poaching. More simply, poaching isn’t hunting, and hunters are not poachers.

[Zeke-BE]

The man is owning up to It!! He reported it and went to court and now he has to pay a fine. If I was a judge the fine would be lot less! If I fined him the full extent for being honest what will that tell future hunters. Lets say you get drawn next year! And something happens like that to you. Maybe you thought you had a clear shot and there was a bedded ram in a bush behind it and killed it. Hmmmm well I know if I tell the truth and it was truly an accident i will be fined 32k dollars. That won't give me much instinctive to tell the truth if it was a (honest mistake).

[trphyhntr]

Where does this $32k valuation come from? In az its $300ish for residents and less than $2k for a non res to get a tag. How can you charge somebody that much money for accidentally killing an animal he could legally kill for a fraction of the cost? It did not cost the state an extra $30k to have a game warden drive out there and investigate and to file a couple court docs and give this guy 15 minutes in front of the judge.

 

This is way excessive and this guy got railroaded bad. That'll teach him to be honest with the government.

 

I had a lawyer tell me once, if you shoot an armed man in your home in the middle of the night, you call me first and the police second.

im glad its not that way, $300 isnt enough to detour a lot of people sadly.

[AzDiamondHeat]

I do understand the fine, but I am in the camp of disagreeing with him losing his license(I think).

 

When I first read it, I was totally on the side of the hunter that the fine and punishment was unreasonable. I am moving to the other side now though.

 

We need to be clear that he CHOSE to shoot the second ram. The ewe was an "accident".

 

He shot at an animal, and then INTENTIONALLY shot at a second. If it was just the ewe that was in question because of a pass-through, that would be different. Just my opinion, but to me the other ram was not an "accident", it was a bad choice. Unfortunately(or fortunately) there can be steep penalties for bad choices.

[mattys281]

 

Where does this $32k valuation come from? In az its $300ish for residents and less than $2k for a non res to get a tag. How can you charge somebody that much money for accidentally killing an animal he could legally kill for a fraction of the cost? It did not cost the state an extra $30k to have a game warden drive out there and investigate and to file a couple court docs and give this guy 15 minutes in front of the judge.

This is way excessive and this guy got railroaded bad. That'll teach him to be honest with the government.

I had a lawyer tell me once, if you shoot an armed man in your home in the middle of the night, you call me first and the police second.

 

im glad its not that way, $300 isnt enough to detour a lot of people sadly.

Im not saying it should be $300 at all. Im saying $32k is waaaaaay out of line to hit an honest guy who owned up to it. If it was a serial poacher, then clean out his bank account and stump-hang the sob if thats what you want to do.

 

I think this kind of b.s. over-adjudication will make a lot of honest guys take the sss road because that kind of 'justice' could spell financial ruin. But at least they let him make payments.....

[trphyhntr]

what did the kid get fined that killed a bighorn or 2 at canyon lake a few years ago? wasnt much if i remember right

[Big Tub]

Seems appropriate. He might have lost the first here in AZ

[Whitesheep]

I had a lawyer tell me once, if you shoot an armed man in your home in the middle of the night, you call me first and the police second.

You should call an ambulance right after you start first aid, then the police and finally the lawyer. Calling your lawyer first would be used against you in court. The fact that this would increase your legal fees is likely why it was suggested by your lawyer "friend" in the first place.

[Whitesheep]

An Alaskan guide told me that the full curl rules in AK for legal sheep have resulted in many mistakes going unreported and then solved with a shovel and tight lips. Good intentions don't mean good results. Hopefully we would all make the right decision even knowing the cost. Cases like this would make that decision very difficult.

[mattys281]

 

I had a lawyer tell me once, if you shoot an armed man in your home in the middle of the night, you call me first and the police second.

You should call an ambulance right after you start first aid, then the police and finally the lawyer. Calling your lawyer first would be used against you in court. The fact that this would increase your legal fees is likely why it was suggested by your lawyer "friend" in the first place.

 

 

I don't think 'friend' is the right word for someone that charges you $300/hr for their advice and the pleasure of their company. I also don't think the comment was intended to literally mean you should let someone bleed out in your kitchen while you flip through the yellow pages looking for a lawyer. The point I took away from it was that if you're in a sticky situation, you'd best keep your mouth shut until you get to talk to someone who's job it is to help you, rather than sing like a canary to someone who's job it is to arrest and/or prosecute you.

[AZbowhntr]

With the wording the way it is I would have fought that all day long. I don't think he purposely or knowingly killed those other two sheep. That is exactly what the wording is in the regulations for Montana. As far as I am concerned he shouldn't have been charged or fined the 30K. I agree he illegally killed them because he didn't have a tag for either of them. So fine him 2K for each of them.