[An Idaho Department of Fish and Game employee fired over a hunting citation is appealing his termination.

Harry Morse, an 11-year department veteran who worked as a regional conservation educator in Pocatello, contends that a plea agreement with the state to settle a hunting citation should not have been used as a basis for his termination.
Morse, who previously worked as a conservation specialist for the Washington state Fish and Wildlife Department, was a spokesman for the Idaho agency, wrote columns for area newspapers and was featured regularly on a radio program.
In November he was cited for two misdemeanors: exceeding the hunting bag limit and failure to tag a deer.
As part of a plea agreement, Valley County Magistrate Henry Boomer accepted an Alford plea — a modified guilty plea — from Morse on one count of failure to tag a deer. Such a plea does not involve an admission of guilt, but a concession that a jury probably would convict.

Boomer sentenced Morse on June 2 to a $500 fine and 40 hours community service. Morse said he has paid the fine and is being scheduled for the service.

Two weeks after his plea, Morse met with Fish and Game Director Steve Huffaker to discuss the episode. About a week later, Morse was notified that he had three days to clean out his desk.
In a formal letter of termination, Huffaker said Morse's lack of judgment and an "evolving" version of events led to the firing.

But Morse contends he only agreed to the plea because it was cheaper and easier than fighting the citation.
The Division of Human Resources appoints a hearing examiner when a classified state employee appeals a firing. Appeals typically take a few months.

Morse said his conduct in the field was honorable.

On Oct. 18, Morse said, he was standing on a ridge near the town of Cascade with hunting companion Scott Jennings of Garberville, Calif. The pair spotted a buck deer on another ridge, about 300 yards away. They agreed that Jennings, who had never bagged a deer before, could take the shot.
Morse said he stood behind Jennings, looking through binoculars, as Jennings fired four rounds through his .270-caliber rifle, hitting the animal at least twice. Morse and Jennings both say the deer started running away toward a steep canyon, where Morse feared it could have become unrecoverable because of the steep terrain.

While Jennings was trying to reload his rifle, Morse said, he shot his own 7mm rifle once or twice at the deer in an effort to make the deer stop moving toward the canyon. After that, the deer tumbled down the hill toward the hunters.
The two retrieved the deer and Morse told Jennings it was "his kill." Jennings put his tag on the deer, quartered the animal and took most of it back to their hunting camp.

The next day, Morse said, Jennings came back for the rest of the deer, and Morse shot, dressed and tagged his own deer.

Morse said his hunting party checked the animals at a check station on their way out of the area. Morse said he didn't tell conservation officers at the check station what happened, but later told co-workers at his office in Pocatello in an informal conversation.

Somehow, Morse said, that discussion prompted other conservation officers to look into his account.
Idaho Fish and Game spokesman Ed Mitchell said the department would not comment on specific personnel issues.
But generally, he said, hunters cannot shoot at another hunter's game.
"What you have there, 99.5 times out of 100, is party hunting, which has been illegal," Mitchell said. "You don't get to shoot more deer than you have tags for. You get to shoot one deer, that's it."
But pressed further on what should happen if two hunters shoot at the same deer, Mitchell said it becomes a gray area of the law.

Morse said he regrets the outcome, but not his decision to pull the trigger.
The deer "was mortally wounded and could have been lost," he said. "It was the kid's deer. I know, because I was standing right behind him."/

Jayco

Based on the account offered I do not believe he did anything wrong, immoral or illegal.

It is my understanding that a deer or any wildlife for that matter does not become a persons property until he/she "claims" the animal after the kill. Thus, this does not sound like party hunting to me--it sounds like 2 hunters shooting at the same deer.

In many cases an animal that is wounded and enters private property has been found to be the property of the shooter and they have a right to enter the property to claim tha animal--escorted by the local conservation officer if permission from the landowner is not granted or readily available.

I believe that game laws are mostly outdated and written during a time when honesty was more readily available then it is today--but nonetheless.

Another example of what I mean by "outdated" is the area of hybridization and speciation---suppose a person kills a nice buck which "appears morphologically to be a mule deer" during a whitetail only season. The person is caught, arrested and charged. During their defense evidence is introduced that the deer is an F1 hybrid- 50% mule deer and 50% whitetail. Without state case law addressing this, do we fall back on federal guidelines?----A hybrid is afforded absolutely no legal protections at all with respect to the feds...What do we do?.....This will come up sooner or later and the game laws of today are not keeping up with technology.

In my humble opinion only, of course......

IV

No, he shouldn't have been fired. For somebody to file charges in this situation if it happened exactly like he described means they have too much time on their hands.

The main objective of ethical hunters is a humane kill. Sometimes things go wrong and I feel after an animal is wounded with a good chance to escape other hunters should help put it down. So I can't fault him for his actions.

Let this be a lesson to everyone. If you are not guilty of something don't cop a plea. Even minor crap like this can haunt you the rest of your life. He should have gone to court as I believe he would have been found not guilty.

When in the field and being checked by a conservation officer, they tend to uphold the letter of the law. They have said on more than one occasion there is no gray in the law only black and white. I have witnessed law officers upholding the letter of the law, even when it was morally wrong but legally right.
I don't want to interpret what happened, but if what he did was legally wrong, he had to lose his job over it.

The way it was explained to me is that the "powers that be" had been looking for "one more thing" on this employee.

As the story is presented, I would agree. If two people shoot a deer, there is no way to say whose animal it is. There is nothing in the law that dictates whether the "first shooter" or the "second shooter" is the "right" one to put the tag on it. Since both had tags in their pocket, party hunting charges really do not apply. Two shots, one dead deer, one tag. Now, if the other fellow had hunted the second day, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. Two hunters, one tag: that's party hunting.

The rules say that the first hunter to take possession is to put their tag on it. That's what happened. The rest is stretching, IMO. Dutch.

Jayco: Well for once I have to agree with the Wolf loving intellectual - Idaho Vandal!
This officer should not have been fired for this "perceived" violation.
If the Department has got the "ass" for this particular warden they should document his shortcomings and get rid off him. To use office (Warden headquarters!!!) gossip to try and build a case against him is assinine and unprofessional.
I do not think he committed ANY violation and folks by the legions are set upon by circumstances that make it more convenient to cop a plea than to hire a lawyer, take time off from work and try to fight the citation.
I am sure this warden will win relief in his civil suit and probably come out with a cash settlement, back pay and such!
I think it was admirable and sporting of him to "assist" his Hunting partner.
Party Hunting! Balderdash!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

A prime example of why you should keep your job separate from your private life.

The circumstances sound disturbingly like hearsay and rumour run wild. Compounded by someone who is not realistic about his own situation at work.

A police officer friend once told me that many people get into serious trouble not because of some Sherlock Holmes type investigation but simply because they could keep there mouth shut.

Should he be fired? No. Will he end up with a pile of money form the state of Idaho? Maybe. Could it have been avoided? Probably.

This situation smells rather rotten, and I'd have to surmise that the "boss" simply did not like this employee and was looking for something -- anything -- to get rid of him. The guy should not have been fired. But when he's exonerated and given his job back, poetic justice would be for his former "boss" to have to offer a public apology and then be either fired or else demoted -- and have the guy he once fired working as his superior!

Nowadays, office politics play too much of a role in the workplace.

A prime exsample of why we did away with type of law in wisconsin. We can now group hunt help each other out. During firearms deer season.

Have seen similar issues here in Indiana. Law says you do not have to tag the deer as long as you are in possession until you load into a vehicle. The hunter had pulled the deer up to his vehicle, Game Warden helped him load it onto his tailgate, knowing it wasn't tagged, then cited the hunter.
Another lovely law. You can only use two hooks on a line, this includes worm harness (2 hooks only) but you can tie two crank baits on your line that have two trebble hooks each and your legal. Makes a lot of sense.

I see no foul at all if it happened the way Morse explained it.

If that version is true.....no, he PROBABLY shouldn't be fired, but his real mistake was a)blabbing about it and b) not fighting the ticket. Dumb, but I suspect he will win on appeal.

I don't quite understand this law. Does this mean that if you hear your buddy shoot at a deer and the deer runs by you with a limp, you are restricted from taking a shot and just have to let it walk? Sounds like just another case of what I have often found in my state, DNR officers that are so full of their authority that they feel like they can't take a common sense approach to the game laws. Since when does any law enforcement officer "have to" go by the letter of the law in all cases? If that were the case, there would be no traffic warnings and every cop would "have to" fine you if they saw you jay-walking. Sounds like that states DNR has too big a budget and needs to be cut back. Just my thoughts.

Before you all get in an uproar, remember that you have only heard one side of the story. As a state agency the IDF&G can not discuss personel issues to the public. So we are not hearing their side of the story. If the story is as the I&E man stated and there is no additional info from the state then the hearing officer will probably reverse the firing decision.

The system almost always works.
465H&H

465, I also suspect there is another side to the story, which is why I qualified my statement to the events "as presented". As the fellow tells the story, there simply was no foul. JMO, Dutch.

I am going to say this, but qualify it with the fact that I can and do write citiations in the Natural Resources field; however, most guys with ticket books get a thrill out of catching bad guys and writing tickets/arrestinp people. It's the truth, reguardless of how many choose to scream foul. They are either not taught, or choose to ignore the primary basis of law enforcement in Natural Resources - you want to gain compliance with regualtions with the least level of enforcement. If you can get a kid to adhere to length limits with education and verbal warnings, don't issue a citation. However, if you bust a guy spotlighting deer and it's a second offense - throw him under the jail. I always thought "intent" had to be worked into the case. Given the above scenario, the guy, Morse, had no "intent" to break the law - just an interest in preventing the loss of game and lingering suffering of the animal. He apparently has done what he might should have done in the first place and sought the advice of legal counsel. I also think that the other posters are right in that the guy's boss was apparently looking for a reason to get rid of him.

HELLO THE CAMPFIRE:
In my humble opinion the action of the gamewarden was dictated by his job. He said he shot an injured amimal which may or may not have been found.
Suspose this, instead of shooting the animal, the friend had hit it with his truck and the animal was laying in the road. The off duty game warden comes by. Would putting the animal down to stop suffering mean that he would have to tag the animal which would cut him out of a later hunt. What would happen if he, in that circumstance did not have a tag? I think that he should have sought some counsel from his employers before he entered a plea. I thought that the warder acted properly. I would appeal if the time has not run, and appeal the firing.
Judge Sharpe

quote:

Originally posted by Redlander:
I am going to say this, but qualify it with the fact that I can and do write citiations in the Natural Resources field; however, most guys with ticket books get a thrill out of catching bad guys and writing tickets/arrestinp people. It's the truth, reguardless of how many choose to scream foul. They are either not taught, or choose to ignore the primary basis of law enforcement in Natural Resources - you want to gain compliance with regualtions with the least level of enforcement. If you can get a kid to adhere to length limits with education and verbal warnings, don't issue a citation. However, if you bust a guy spotlighting deer and it's a second offense - throw him under the jail.

So the first offense for spotlighting deer should be a warning? It seems that spotlighting without intent would be difficult.

So

quote:

Originally posted by MrHawg:

quote:

Originally posted by Redlander:
I am going to say this, but qualify it with the fact that I can and do write citiations in the Natural Resources field; however, most guys with ticket books get a thrill out of catching bad guys and writing tickets/arrestinp people. It's the truth, reguardless of how many choose to scream foul. They are either not taught, or choose to ignore the primary basis of law enforcement in Natural Resources - you want to gain compliance with regualtions with the least level of enforcement. If you can get a kid to adhere to length limits with education and verbal warnings, don't issue a citation.
However, if you bust a guy spotlighting deer and it's a second offense - throw him under the jail.

So the first offense for spotlighting deer should be a warning? It seems that spotlighting without intent would be difficult.

So

Yes spotlighting without intent would be hard, however, MrHawg, that’s not what Redlander said. He said a second offense, not a second offense for spotlighting.
If it was his SECOND offense for spotlighting, they should cut off his hands IMO.

Now about the guy from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

A wise man once schooled me with this:
“There are THREE sides to every story: your side, my side and the truth.â€
The truth being somewhere in between.

That said, if the situation was as described, I would have shot the dear too.

If the IDF&G is using this as a reason to “get rid if him†without just cause, I hope his civil suit causes some other people to lose their jobs.

I also would not have talked about it at work, at least until quite awhile later.

Thank goodness we don't have to fool around with tagging our deer! This guy did what I would have done in a similar situation. It sound like some water had passed under the bridge and they used this issue to springboard a trumped up charge against him.

I don't know how "wildlife educator" got turned into "game warden", but I don't think that this person was a game warden, at least according to this website (note the date and location):

http://www.fisheries.org/html/jobs/job3185.htm

In any event, back here in the Northeast the employee would be protected by a union and a contract that would likely not allow an action that occurred while the employee was not working to be used against him. His fine is his punishment for what he agreed was his violation of the law.

On a side note - his friend should be fined for poor shooting.

I totally agree with Flippy's remark:

quote:

A wise man once schooled me with this:
“There are THREE sides to every story: your side, my side and the truth.â€
The truth being somewhere in between.

I'm sure there is more to be said about what REALLY happened, but after looking at the job application posted by erict this person is responsible for educating the public, as well as working heavily with the hunter safety program. I'm sure this individual is well aware of the game and fish laws in Idaho, and should have known better. How does it look, a guy who is responsible for hunter safety (who hunts in a safe and ethical, lawful manner) breaking game laws?

Looking at the article as a whole, the guy plead this case out on a plea agreement because he more than likely would be charged GUILTY by a jury. Makes you wonder, he sure sugar coated his remarks to the paper...but if a jury would convict a guy there is more to it than what was in the article IMO. Who here can say if he should be fired or kept on if all the information isn't available??

MG

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
Based on the account offered I do not believe he did anything wrong, immoral or illegal.

It is my understanding that a deer or any wildlife for that matter does not become a persons property until he/she "claims" the animal after the kill. Thus, this does not sound like party hunting to me--it sounds like 2 hunters shooting at the same deer.

In many cases an animal that is wounded and enters private property has been found to be the property of the shooter and they have a right to enter the property to claim tha animal--escorted by the local conservation officer if permission from the landowner is not granted or readily available.

I believe that game laws are mostly outdated and written during a time when honesty was more readily available then it is today--but nonetheless.

Another example of what I mean by "outdated" is the area of hybridization and speciation---suppose a person kills a nice buck which "appears morphologically to be a mule deer" during a whitetail only season. The person is caught, arrested and charged. During their defense evidence is introduced that the deer is an F1 hybrid- 50% mule deer and 50% whitetail. Without state case law addressing this, do we fall back on federal guidelines?----A hybrid is afforded absolutely no legal protections at all with respect to the feds...What do we do?.....This will come up sooner or later and the game laws of today are not keeping up with technology.

In my humble opinion only, of course......

IV

IV: Could you please post a picture of a true hybrid that would cause such a court stir? I know WTD and MD hybrids occur, but I don't think your example is very realistic.

Laws are supposed to be simple. If you are hunting a whitetail during a wtd only season, you look and see if the deer has a big fluffy white tail. It's pretty simple. If it has a white rump and a non-fluffy tail, now I'd call that a mule deer. Have you noticed I didn't say anything about antlers? That's because people shouldn't look at antlers to determine species. Many of us have seen some guy looking at a 3X3 mule deer who says "oh golly, that's gotta be a hybrid"!

IV, I know that you know your shit, and I am not trying to insult your intelligence. I do think that you are a little caught up in the academic world and are just about to enter the real world (in which you will do fine) in wildlife management. From your posts, I can tell that you have plenty of common sence, which is more important than anything for a wildlife manager/researcher/etc in my opinion. I wish you the best.

Well, I hope to avoid the real world and remain in academia.....much more fun.

Anyway, here is a photo taken from a search on the web. This particular photo is from the early 70's. The website it came from claims hybrids rarely survive in captivity, however recent studies have shown that they do survive in the wild but exactly how often it occurs and the relevance of such is not known. A conservation officer here in Idaho mentioned a prosecution recently that went awry because of the defense I mentioned, I have searched the internet for the specifics of the case but I have found nothing, nect time I see him I will find out more specific info should someone want to research it. Here is the photo as promised:
[url="http://www.hunt101.com/?p=308433&c=500&z=1"] [/url]

Based on current game laws, is it a whitetail or a mule deer?

IV

After rereading the original report, I agree with the judge, the guy was guilty . He shot two deer.
However, he convicted himself. He admitted to shooting the original deer, and then shot another one later.
Can you say "KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT" boys and girls?
Another way to look at it, if it had been me or you, would the gentleman in question write you a ticket? I suspect so.

quote:

In a formal letter of termination, Huffaker said Morse's lack of judgment and an "evolving" version of events led to the firing.

If you all will notice, no where did Huffaker say Morse's shooting the deer in question was wrong. When he mentioned his "lack of judgment" and an "evolving version of events", it sure looks like a clinton-spin of saying Mr. Morse Lied to him concerning what happened.

More than happy to say I'm simply reading that wrong if you all see a different way of interpreting it.
---

Now, firing a guy for spinning a yarn about a Hunting Trip would put a lot of folks out of a job. But, if your job is in Game Enforcement and the Boss asks what actually happened, if you Lie, he really has no choice but to pull out the ax and chop you off the payrole.

I've had Liers work for me in the past and rarely trusted anything they had to say, the old Trust but Verify as President Reagan would say. But if I ever caught them Lieing about something pertaining directly to the job and I proved they were in fact Lieing, they became "former employees". You simply can't properly run a company, program or Game Department with people who will Lie to you.

And in fact, I respect the "Yarn Spinners" that tell me they were not being serious, but just telling a made-up story.

Nice photo...interesting question:

"Based on current game laws, is it a whitetail or a mule deer?"

It is neither...it is a hybrid. I hear all this BS about folks shooting or seeing hybrid deer all the time. In all reality, this occurance is so rare that even a researcher (IV) doens't even have a recent photo of an actual DNA tested hybrid...even the photo he has came from a deer that was in captivity. I think depending on the circumstances, a hybrid (that exhibits traits of both parents clearly similar to the one in the photo) can or cannot be harvested depending on the circumstances.
In Wyoming there are many places where we have an "any whitetail", "doe/fawn mule deer only", "doe/fawn whitetail only" and "any deer" seasons. If I was hunting and I saw this during an any deer season I would shoot. My license is good for ANY deer. If I saw this deer during an "any whitetail season" I would not. Are you 100% sure this IS a whitetail?? If the hunter has ANY doubt he/she should NOT shoot. If I saw this deer during an "any mule deer" season again, he would walk. Is the "any whitetail" or "any mule deer" license good for a hybrid deer?? No way.
Maybe there is no grey area during an "any deer" season, but if you have a whitetail only or mule deer only season does this qualify for either??
Same question arises during some "antlered deer only" hunts. I have seen photos of a handful of deer that were does, but for some reason exhibited antler growth. SHould a guy get a citation for killing an antlered doe deer during an antlered deer season? I think the doe qualifies. Now look at a late doe/fawn whitetail season. It is not uncommon for a whitetail buck to rid himself of antlers while this season is still running. SHould a guy who shoots a buck that has recently shed its antlers get a citation for wrong sex?Technically he could. The license is ONLY good for a doe and a fawn...says nothing about antlerless buck deer.

I'm sure folks could go on and on with "what if" or "what about..". The truth of the matter is, that hybridization in nature is SO rare (Kramer 1973, Stubblefield, Warren, and Murphy 1986, Wishart 1980) that only a handful of hunters will EVER see one in the field (it is not very uncommon in captivity). Unfortunately many of those who believe they have killed a "hybrid" are only looking at antler development and are making mistakes in species identification.

JMO

MG

MG: The picture is of a deer that in fact "looks" hybrid. Unfortunately, most hybrids look more like one parent or the other, I agree that many people are seeing deer and they "think" they have a hybrid and they probably do not. Most game laws DO NOT ADDRESS the issue of hybridization. If a deer is not a whitetail or a mule deer or in some states a blacktail it is unprotected. The studies you cited are very outdated when molecular analysis was not as advanced as it is today. If interested you may want to check out Carr et al. 1986 and Cathey et al. 1998. Hybridization occurs much more than was thought even 10 years ago (only in sympatric zones of course) The picture I found was only after a 30 second search on the internet. I am sure there are more out ther that can better exemplify the morphological characteristics I am speaking of.

You are probably right though, the chances of my hypothetical scenario becoming a problem is very remote, but I merely wanted to point out that these things will need to be thought about in the future much more so than people think. Game managers, researchers etc. are hopefully able to use common sense but unfortunately we all know criminals and defense attorneys will exploit every single bit of technology they can use when confronted with criminal prosecutions.



IV

quote:

Originally posted by jaycocreek:
[An Idaho Department of Fish and Game employee fired over a hunting citation is appealing his termination.
.
.
.
But generally, he said, hunters cannot shoot at another hunter's game.

I do not think the shooting was wrong; letting wounded game get away would have been worse.

Another reason to keep your mouth shut. People always have a way of twisting the truth whether it was morally right or not. I do not believe he did anything wrong and would have done the same thing myself as it's a waste to just let a injured deer get away and die with the risk of not finding it.

I am also interested in the "evolving" story. Working for the game and fish department, he should be held to a higher standard to avoid giving the impression of favortism.
That said, I go out of my way to avoid game wardens. I have been burned before by game wardens putting their own interpetations of the law. I try to keep it legal, and then keep my mouth shut.

Too many unknowns.

We don't know all of the facts.

Cannot base an opinion on what little info available.

Finally, SOME THINGS ARE BETTER LEFT UNSAID. The guy should have kept his big mouth shut, espcecially in front of his fellow wardens, if that is indeed what he was.

Wardens that I've met can have a superiority complex. And spouting off info like that is like a street cop telling something about a bad sting in front of the internal affairs officer.

My question would be this: If Morse was on a hill and witnessed 2 hunters, say me and one of you guys, do the exact same thing, would he give us a citation? If so, then, my ultimate answer would have to be YES, he should be fired.

If he witnessed the exact same scenario and did not write a citation, then NO.

Maybe some of you need to read this thread...this guy was an education specialist, not a game warden.

It is no wonder why some of you have distaste for wardens, if you read these posts as well as you read your regulations it is no wonder why you have problems and get into trouble!!

MG

Madgoat,
Perhaps you need to reread my post. Where did I say this guy was a game warden? I said he worked for the fish and game department, which is clearly stated in the first line of the original post.
As far as my beef with game wardens, why don't you tell this list why I was wrong? Unless you know me personally, you can't because I never stated the details. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to condem until you know facts.

There is so much gray area in the law. In this case, the F&G department says this guy sould not have shot at the wounded animal. There was a post going on in the Alaska forum where a hunter was forced to tag a bear that his guide shot (he missed his shot). Go figure.

quote:

Originally posted by Madgoat:
Maybe some of you need to read this thread...this guy was an education specialist, not a game warden.

It is no wonder why some of you have distaste for wardens, if you read these posts as well as you read your regulations it is no wonder why you have problems and get into trouble!!

MG

Nevertheless, he still worked for the DNR.

The user name "Oldfart" is pretty fitting....

How exactly were you "burned" by a game warden? Just so there is no more grey area, feel free to elaborate. I don't remember replying to your post anyhow.

You're right Doc, there are too many unknowns with this deal.

MG

The big question is should Harry Morse be fired over the citation he received? He pleaed guilt so no question as to what he did. You have to wonder what his relationship was to his fellow workers and the real text of the conversation with them that lead to a hunting citation. We are only hearing one side of this and if he wasn't an emplyee of Idaho fish and game we wouldn't have this to talk about. The newpaper he write a column for once a week think he should be given a second chance but fish and game has an ad on their site for his replacement and outlines the job. I think he got a pretty good deal on his plea agreement and if that happened to me here in Co I lose my hunting for up to 10yrs and a fine to match and if they wanted to make an expamle out of me could even have jail time and if I had that deer with me I could lose the truck etc and you got to wonder if thats the reason he did mention it at the game check. I don't want to get into a right or wrong thing but these thing can get to be a big deal. I always tell guys you never know who's in the mountains with a cell phone so be careful.
Years ago my nephew kill a cow elk by mistake we could of left it but I said best to go into town and talk to fish and game he was worried about the money and I told him I'd pay the fine well after he had a leghty interview with fish and game he got a carass tag to bring the elk out by the next afternoon and they gave him a fine of $75. plus lost his elk tag. When we finally got the elk out and back to fish and game warden was telling me they 4 calls plus my truck plate # on that cow and he said it was good we came in instead of them having to find us. I have alot of respect for the game wardens they have a tough job sure some of them are cocky but they are there to help also.

quote:

The user name "Oldfart" is pretty fitting....

It suits me fine.

quote:

How exactly were you "burned" by a game warden? Just so there is no more grey area, feel free to elaborate.

Gladly. What does the law "Unlawful to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle" mean to you. I made the mistake of thinking that it meant driving around with a loaded gun in the vehicle. However, that is what I got the ticket for after I set my gun in the truck while waiting for a chuck to pop out (the truck never moved). He interperted the word "carry" to "have". The law further define this as having the gun in or on the vehicle. According to this guys interpetation, it would be illegal to even use the hood of your truck as a rest to shoot your gun over. I was to young and dumb at the time, and now I wish I would have fought it. Even the judge thought this was a stretch, and fined me only 5 bucks.
This guy had a couple of people with him that I think he was trying to impress. He told me at the time he was giving me a ticket to teach me a lesson. He did, don't trust a game warden.
Before I get bombarded with the stories of "good" game wardens, I have many other dealings with wardens who have been more than fair. However, until they carry a sign that tells if they are good or bad, I would just as soon avoid them.

Another Gray law I may eventually get nailed on is leaving evidence of sex attached to the animal. I hunt in areas where the only practical way to get the animal out is to bone it out. In these cases, I usually pack the nuts out in a sandwich bag to avoid them contaminating the meat, but I hope I don't run across a warden when I do this.

quote:

I don't remember replying to your post anyhow.

Perhaps not, but I took it as such. Regardless, don't assume having problems with game wardens are due to failure to read the regulations.