.270 Report post Posted August 11, 2008 bottom line is if these guys woulda thought about this a little more, it wouldn't have been a big deal. i'm surprised mcclendon got off tho. i never heard of anyone guiding millionaires for free. Lark. http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?ne...05965&rfi=6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted August 11, 2008 Interesting that they were found guilty only on the finishing shot, not the initial one. What were they supposed to do, let it lay there and suffer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CouesWhitetail Report post Posted August 11, 2008 Thanks for posting that article. I wondered what happened with that also. Amanda Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted August 11, 2008 i was sorta wondering about that too, desertbull. seems like the azgfd has always been of the slant that you should do your best to finish off an animal asap. still, this was a real dumb deal. never get in a situation that needs a tapemeasure to decide if you're legal or not. there are so many ways to get a big bull with the statewide tag. why would you wait to the end of the year and shoot a bull in a subdivision? Lark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snapshot Report post Posted August 11, 2008 This issue caused some very heated debates on some other websites after it happened. The rumor was that one of the area residents had this bull patterned and had it on video and sold that info to the guy with the tag. I don't know the truth to the matter, however, it was heavily argued. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted August 11, 2008 This issue caused some very heated debates on some other websites after it happened. The rumor was that one of the area residents had this bull patterned and had it on video and sold that info to the guy with the tag. I don't know the truth to the matter, however, it was heavily argued. That's not illegal though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snapshot Report post Posted August 11, 2008 That's not illegal though. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the fine points of the law on that. But basically the guy sold info on the location of an animal that was hunted, technically guiding without a license since he was paid???? That really wasn't was argued about, it was the whole ethical, unethical, standpoint of what happened. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, you know its not good when it ends up in front of a judge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted August 11, 2008 I heard he took the test and got his guide license before selling the info. Not sure about that though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimhm Report post Posted August 11, 2008 You are correct on that DesertBull. Jim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted August 12, 2008 Malik paid $10,000 for the info, the guy got his guide license to legally collect. He also said he could get the surrounding neighbor's permission to shoot around their property, he couldn't or didn't fullfill that promise. Now for the juicy rumors going on up there. Malik offered $1,000,000 to G&F for all of this to go away and get his elk back with no citations. What a tangled web we weave. Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RockyMtnOyster Report post Posted August 12, 2008 Malik paid $10,000 for the info, the guy got his guide license to legally collect. He also said he could get the surrounding neighbor's permission to shoot around their property, he couldn't or didn't fullfill that promise. Now for the juicy rumors going on up there. Malik offered $1,000,000 to G&F for all of this to go away and get his elk back with no citations. What a tangled web we weave. Kent If the above is true, AZGFD should take the money and run. With legal costs already mounting, what do they really have to gain? And if they already have proven that he initially shot the bull from a legal distance, then what's the big deal? It was a sad deal, the way it all ended, but no need to det messy in courts. McClendon's have my respect, I hope this all ends soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
300 wsm Report post Posted August 12, 2008 He did not have permission and was told NOT to shoot that bull in there by the guy. He had him patterned to where he could shoot it way away from any house. But he did not listen and shot him there anyways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted August 12, 2008 He did not have permission and was told NOT to shoot that bull in there by the guy. He had him patterned to where he could shoot it way away from any house. But he did not listen and shot him there anyways. This is true, wasn't there someone else that didn't want them killing this bull, and actively trying to keep the bull in the subdivision so it could be killed later? Pressure to produce in the hunting industry today can make good people make stupid decisions. Stuff like this is why I backpack hunt whenever possible. Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZ402 Report post Posted August 12, 2008 Interesting that they were found guilty only on the finishing shot, not the initial one. What were they supposed to do, let it lay there and suffer? Exactly. I wouldn't listen to the idiot rumors out there, no merit to them. Also it sounds like a few guys on here have some bad info....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted August 12, 2008 Rumors are rumors, even coming out of the horses mouth. I do know for a fact that the G&F officer had a frustrating 8 hrs in court that fri, and was happy to be out checking bears till late sat. Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
