An Open Dialog on G & F Laws

[azsugarbear]

Flatlander - the issue is not that they wrote a ticket for a violation. I fully expected that. I fully expected to pay a fine and perhaps some community service. What I did not expect was when you plead guilty or no contest, it opens up the door to a civil action where G & F (not a civil court) can decide to fine and revoke or suspend your hunting privileges for up to five years. That is far from being a simple matter and it seems a little extreme to me for what I did. After my initial encounter with G & F, I was not inclined to put any further trust and faith in them to find some middle ground or to play fair. Enacting a new law could be one way of ensuring that certain self-reported violations are treated differently. I am trying to complete my Arizona Big Ten. At my age, having my hunting privileges suspended for even one year would completely knock me out of any chance for drawing a big horn tag. I would lose the annual point, plus lose my loyalty point. Losing those two points alone would mathematically put me out of the running until I am 75. I just couldn't risk it. By the way, my attorney made no recommendation. He laid out all the courses of action, along with everything that could go wrong or right with each one. Then he let me make the call. I was simply unwilling to give G & F another shot at me, my wallet or my future hunting. Additionally, I am a financial professional that holds several licenses. I make my livelihood with them. Having a public criminal record could impact my ability to renew them and therefore, was simply not an option - regardless of the violation. The diversion program made the violation disappear. Perhaps you see it differently in part because your circumstances are not the same as mine?

 

Some comments in this thread have been along the lines that poaching is poaching. Period. Black and white. I get it. That is the way the law currently reads. One of my questions is: Should it? With most other criminal violations, the law clearly looks to the original intent. That is why, when a life is taken, there are several different violations that a person can be charged with from first degree murder on down to negligent homicide. Stealing a candy bar from a store is no different than stealing millions from the elderly through fraud. It's all stealing, right? My point is, the law has always been willing to look at the intent of the charged individual as well as the magnitude and severity of the crime itself. Did he/she intend for this to happen? But the legal term "criminal intent" has oddly been left out of the laws drawn up for G & F.

 

Please understand - I'm not calling anybody out here. This is the kind of open discussion I was looking for.

[trphyhntr]

No one is reading these novels

[MattMan]

https://youtu.be/L-WlZ7Sa0SQ

 

Good advice.

[DUG]

No one is reading these novels

You have over 7000 posts.

[trphyhntr]

 

 

No one is reading these novels

You have over 7000 posts.

What does that have to do with OPs walls of text

[drcarr]

I actually find the so-called "novels" interesting and informative... unfortunate that you had to learn such harsh lessons azsugarbear... while I've never been cited by The Game and Fish or had any reason to plead a case before the Game and Fish Commission my observations lead me to believe the punitive actions are far too often arbitrarily assigned ... thanks for sharing your predicament... I know several people who are now discussing the merits of "self-reporting" based on the information you presented.......

[Guest akaspecials]

I read the novellas:

You admitted to shooting two animals. You can't do that. What you described in your post is buddy hunting. You shot a bird. Then shot another bird so your friend can tag yours. That's a big no-no.

I couldn't fully tell if three birds were taken total, but if that was the case, while buddy hunting you poached an extra animal. What I'm getting at it is: what you did is a lot worse than buddy hunting and just harvesting your limit of one each, if that is what happened.

Accident or not, those are pretty flagrant violations. You not only committed flagrant game violations that they teach about in every hunter safety course, but you also became so wrapped up in filling your tags that you taught a new hunter to buddy hunt and not to check what he shot at. There is no excuse. It sucks. Learn from it.

I personally think the punishment is a little excessive; I think a 1,000 dollar fine and a years suspension would be appropriate because you self reported. That being said, I don't think you're gonna get any traction with legislation in light of the case that I just laid out above. You f****d up big time and I don't think you have any clue how serious of a violation you committed in the eyes of the law.

[trphyhntr]

Fair enough

[Delw]

 

Friends dont let friends talk to cops.

For anyone getting into hunting, let this situation serve as a reminder: ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS check if you hit the animal before shooting again.

The real sad thing is that people shoot and kill game all the time and dont recover it, then go and shoot at another animal. You got in trouble for recovering it and trying to be honest.

This is the money quote in this entire topic.

 

I'm not faulting the OP. But 2 shots were fired. No other action should have happened until the area was thoroughly checked for 2 birds down. It's a conscience decision we all must make, especially if the other hunter "wasn't sure" he got it. Irregardless if other birds are running around. We must be certain.

 

yup forlorn hit the nail on the head with this post.

[azsugarbear]

akaspecials - I would respectfully disagree with you on your 'buddy hunting' comment. When I asked him if he had killed his bird and he identified the same bird I had shot at, then there became a possibility that it was his bird. At that moment, it became possible that we had shot and killed the same bird. Was it possible that he missed that bird? Yes. Was it possible that I missed that same bird? Yes. Was it possible we both hit the bird? Yes. There was no way of knowing in the moment. I allowed for the fact that we both hit it and decided to let him claim it.

 

On a separate note: This thread is still getting lots of comments about what I should have done and how bad I screwed up. I appreciate the comments and different perspectives. However, that is not what this thread is about. This thread is asking questions about the laws currently in place, what other states are doing, and whether or not a change is warranted. Please limit any future posts to those questions being asked. For all others, I have a thick skin, so if you want to dump on me - fine. Just start your own thread.

[oz31p]

I read thru every post and basically you wanted a lesser punishment because you self reported.

 

You stated you shot a turkey and saw it was down, then decided to shoot another one. What other facts matter?

[BOWUNTR]

Dude... this is the internet... look in the mirror and deal with it. Ed F

[Guest akaspecials]

azsugarbear- please read what you wrote below. If that is the story that you gave to the judge or game warden, there is no way they couldn't hit you hard.

 

"We had a prior agreement that we would both shoot at the flock at the same time to increase our chances of both getting our turkey. I would shoot a bird from my side of the flock. He would shoot one on his side. The plan worked perfectly. We both fired at the same time. My bird dropped in front of a pinon tree. I asked him if he got his. His reply was "I don't know, I don't see it". That was followed shortly by "Oh wait a minute, there it is in front of the tree". As many of you know, visibility is not great when there are two adults in a small blind. My immediate thought was: great, he shot my bird, or he missed and thinks that my bird is the one he was aiming at. Rather than correct him, I decided to let him have "my" bird. I wanted his first turkey hunt to be a positve experience. There was a poult still running around, so I elected to shoot it for the gumbo pot back home."

[stanley]

akaspecials - I would respectfully disagree with you on your 'buddy hunting' comment. When I asked him if he had killed his bird and he identified the same bird I had shot at, then there became a possibility that it was his bird. At that moment, it became possible that we had shot and killed the same bird. Was it possible that he missed that bird? Yes. Was it possible that I missed that same bird? Yes. Was it possible we both hit the bird? Yes. There was no way of knowing in the moment. I allowed for the fact that we both hit it and decided to let him claim it.

 

On a separate note: This thread is still getting lots of comments about what I should have done and how bad I screwed up. I appreciate the comments and different perspectives. However, that is not what this thread is about. This thread is asking questions about the laws currently in place, what other states are doing, and whether or not a change is warranted. Please limit any future posts to those questions being asked. For all others, I have a thick skin, so if you want to dump on me - fine. Just start your own thread.

 

No, I do not think a change in the law(s) is warranted.

 

If you let another hunter tag an animal you killed (as you indicated was your intent) and/or killed more than your limit, you should face the consequences as they are based on the current laws, IMO.

 

S.

[Arizona Griz]

No one is reading these novels

Obviously you are and then you make your typical stupid comments. Then you backpedal again with your typical stupid crawfish remarks. If you cant contribute to the thread then dont post. What a troll.