The Hedgehog
Well-known member
WTF. I know after reading this, I'd be digging a couple holes if I were ever in a predicament like that.
MT Sheep Hunter Fined
- Thread starter Nemont
- Start date
LopeHunter
Well-known member
We have an obligation when hunting to know the law and to be careful when using a weapon that can take a human life as well as big game life. Is an unfortunate situation but I have zero issue with the law being applied as written. If this keeps some of us from doing the right thing then that goes back to character is revealed when no one else is watching.
katqanna
Well-known member
Ben, I was thinking the same thing, especially in light of seeing other intentional violations receive a slap on the hand.
When I read this earlier, my first thought was good on the guy for calling it in, but others, reading about this, might not be so inclined to make a call now, anticipating similar fines and loss of privileges.
Discretion, is one of the subjects that I interviewed FWP's Ron Jendro (enforcement) about a couple weeks ago, as well as my wanting to take a look at the judicial side of things, the judges discretion. Surely, with the wardens corroboration of the scene, there should have been a reduction of the fine and loss of privilege, if any.
When I read this earlier, my first thought was good on the guy for calling it in, but others, reading about this, might not be so inclined to make a call now, anticipating similar fines and loss of privileges.
Discretion, is one of the subjects that I interviewed FWP's Ron Jendro (enforcement) about a couple weeks ago, as well as my wanting to take a look at the judicial side of things, the judges discretion. Surely, with the wardens corroboration of the scene, there should have been a reduction of the fine and loss of privilege, if any.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
This ^^^^. Amazing how quick a man can go Bundy when he can't set his own price.
Anyone who doesn't like limitations on judicial discretion should take it up with the folks who took it away. They are usually "law and order" tough guy politicians who think punishment is the only way to learn someone, even before they know the facts. We know who those politicians are.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Doing the "right thing" was clearly not the right thing.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
I'd guess he did not have an attorney or request a trial.
JoseCuervo
New member
Tough thing is with mandatory minimum sentences, and the "mandatory" trophy price that the State has assigned to the Big Horns....
Someday, we will have legislatures that trust judges. Until then, we will have barstool voters with Faux Outrage demanding long criminal sentences on pot smokers, accidental hunting incidents, and enemy combatants in the War on Christmas.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
DA has a choice when to use trophy restitution.
Also a couple clear words in this section, in addition to "shall" are "purposely or knowingly illegally killing":
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.
Also a couple clear words in this section, in addition to "shall" are "purposely or knowingly illegally killing":
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.
Last edited:
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
I once was a witness in a trail for an "illegally" taken trophy animal. Hunter was labeled a poacher on all the state newspaper covers and spent in excess of $5,000 on an attorney. Trial was 6 months after the fact, short, and after a 5 minute deliberation he was found not guilty. FWP returned the head and several hundred pounds of "burger" afterwards. Shortly after the trial, the warden who wrote the ticket apologized to me in the gym, saying he hadn't even seen those regulations sent to hunters by MT FWP before writing ticket. Thanks. Your sorry? Ha.
The hunter later had the animals head tattooed on his shoulder and made a point to show the regional FWP director, after the fact. At least he had a sense of humor. I wouldn't find anything funny about it, or especially a 32K fine and 30 month hunting suspension. I'm fairly positive that 99% of those aware of this incident, faced with something similar someday, will not be volunteering for a 30K fine, regardless if somebody is looking, or if they are all alone with their conscious.
For those who preach otherwise, save your posts in the "Wednesday's Word" section where they belong.
The hunter later had the animals head tattooed on his shoulder and made a point to show the regional FWP director, after the fact. At least he had a sense of humor. I wouldn't find anything funny about it, or especially a 32K fine and 30 month hunting suspension. I'm fairly positive that 99% of those aware of this incident, faced with something similar someday, will not be volunteering for a 30K fine, regardless if somebody is looking, or if they are all alone with their conscious.
For those who preach otherwise, save your posts in the "Wednesday's Word" section where they belong.
Last edited:
Shoulda lost lic. for longer & in recip.states, just for shooting into a group of animals,after not making sure of the 1st shot....Maybe have to take a hunter safety & shooting safety class , every year for 3 yrs...sorry I'm tired of shitty fines on big things & big things going unpunished. (Former LEO)
On a BH OIL type tag?
The fine is the fine. Maybe a bit steep.
Fine with me to see a real fine for a change. A case of pink hand is the usual fine & or sentence.
In NM I bet the 10k fine for trophy poaching has only been given a couple of times out of possible dozens of cases. No data to back that up, but most likely true.
The discretion thing does look slighted, usually for a ferner.....non local.
I bet most of the cases brought to court here in my area get tossed. Except someone from out of state without a lawyer.
On a BH OIL type tag?
The fine is the fine. Maybe a bit steep.
Fine with me to see a real fine for a change. A case of pink hand is the usual fine & or sentence.
In NM I bet the 10k fine for trophy poaching has only been given a couple of times out of possible dozens of cases. No data to back that up, but most likely true.
The discretion thing does look slighted, usually for a ferner.....non local.
I bet most of the cases brought to court here in my area get tossed. Except someone from out of state without a lawyer.
Last edited:
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I'm fairly positive you are right that 99% are dishonorable. I'm also 99% positive you are one of those people who vote for "get tough" politicians and D.A.s who limit their own and judicial discretion. I'll preach right here and if I ever catch you doing this shit you can go to jail where you belong.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Still "bummed" about not finding that big black rock I see.
Here are the compelling statutes:
Over-Limit Killing:
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/6/87-6-413.htm
What it takes to find restitution is warranted:
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/6/87-6-905.htm
MCA 45-2-101 defines what constitutes knowingly or purposely:
Restitution statute clearly states that the fine is mandatory so long as it is determined that the actions were knowingly or purposely taken:
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/6/87-6-907.htm
The way the story reads, it doesn't sound like the hunter knowingly or purposely acted to take three sheep. I bet he would win an appeal on the license suspension and trophy restitution fine if he went after it. I can see why the judge may have thought that this deserved the restitution, but I also think that a little bit more common sense would have led him to not make that part of the ruling.
EDIT: After reading it a little more closely, it would seem that entering a guilty or No Lo Contendre plea would necessitate the restitution fine as it defacto proves knowingly or purposely committing an illegal act.
Over-Limit Killing:
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/6/87-6-413.htm
What it takes to find restitution is warranted:
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/6/87-6-905.htm
MCA 45-2-101 defines what constitutes knowingly or purposely:
Restitution statute clearly states that the fine is mandatory so long as it is determined that the actions were knowingly or purposely taken:
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/6/87-6-907.htm
The way the story reads, it doesn't sound like the hunter knowingly or purposely acted to take three sheep. I bet he would win an appeal on the license suspension and trophy restitution fine if he went after it. I can see why the judge may have thought that this deserved the restitution, but I also think that a little bit more common sense would have led him to not make that part of the ruling.
EDIT: After reading it a little more closely, it would seem that entering a guilty or No Lo Contendre plea would necessitate the restitution fine as it defacto proves knowingly or purposely committing an illegal act.
Last edited:
JoseCuervo
New member
The DA may have a choice, but the JUDGE doesn't.....
Keep in mind, I never passed the Montana Bar exam, so I have that going for me....
There is a reason we have so many bumper stickers with "Shoot, Shovel, and ShutUp"....
JoseCuervo
New member
I just now see your edit.
But, yes, he agreed to the "knowingly" and the "purposely". I don't see the judge having any option, nor, do I see him able to appeal a guilty plea, after he decided he didn't like the penalty.
That is not how this works, not how any of this works....
I go back to the "let's let judges have discretion" arguments, and quit with the Faux Outrage every time we have some "liberal activist Judge, legislating from the bench" and not sentencing 4th graders who don't participate in the nativity scene at their local school program.
.
Last edited:
Yep. I think that's right, unfortunately. Easiest way to fix this is by giving the judge more flexibility by changing shall to may in 87-6-907. Then we can argue about how light the sentences are for poachers who knowingly and purposely poach critters.
JEL
Well-known member
I think the fines were reasonable. It is the restitution that seems like it could have been dismissed if proven to be a honest mistake (kind of like when you hit a trophy with a car). I suppose the restitution statute could be updated to reflect something like that??
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Oh you would post a picture on here. Sheep on each side of you.
Crossbow in one hand LR rifle in the other.
The people would cheer!
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
There seems to be room for an argument that the intent goes to the act and not to the criminality of the act. In other words, he meant to do what he did even if he did not intend to commit a violation. The fact that what he did might also constitute a violation goes to the ignorance of the law issue.
But regardless, we are all guessing if we don't have the findings of fact and conclusions of law which are specifically required to show that the (illegal?) killing was done knowingly or purposely. Even if the intent to commit a crime is required, that finding had to be made and facts had to be found to support it. Where is the judges decision and what did he base it upon?
But regardless, we are all guessing if we don't have the findings of fact and conclusions of law which are specifically required to show that the (illegal?) killing was done knowingly or purposely. Even if the intent to commit a crime is required, that finding had to be made and facts had to be found to support it. Where is the judges decision and what did he base it upon?
Last edited:
T
tjones
Guest
A guy did this same thing a few years back within plain sight and a few hundred yards from the Darby check station on a couple raghorns. The whole crew from the check station watched as he shot one bull it ran off so he shot another followed closely by them both tipping over.
