huntfish2,



I agree that we haven't heard all the evidence. We have discussed this case, as you said, on the evidence we do have.

As you saw, however, some were ready to convict the accused for things he did that were not a part of the charges against him. By discussing those issues, I think we may have all learned something from it. If nothing else, I hope I have caused the potential jurors reading this thread to think about the consequences of their decisions by weighing evidence presented by both sides in a case carefully along with only the applicable law instead of jumping to conclusions and accepting only what officers have said as credible evidence or considering other laws that do not apply.

I have often wondered if a game warden could make it stick if he cited me for violating that law simply because I didn't unload my rifle before getting back to my truck after hunting. I'm convinced now that I could present a good case against such charges, because I do it for self defense. I have found case law to support my position while discussing this, and I shared it with you so you would have the information as well. What you choose to do with that information is your decision to make.

There is something else I am aware of that had an influence on my interest in this case. There is a friend of mine who was accused of having a loaded rifle and hunting near the road when he was a young man. His version of the story is that he had unloaded his rifle well before he got to the road.

Two game wardens came by on the road in a personal vehicle and stopped. They cited him for hunting near the road and claimed that his rifle was loaded when it was not, and that he was hunting when he was not. It was their word against his. His dad is also a friend of mine, and he confirmed the son's story to be true. They both do not trust game wardens to this day, and I have confidence in both of them to be telling the truth.

I wish all enforcement officers were honest. The truth is, some are not.

I said I was done with this argument.

However what real evidence can the GW present. His opinion against bucky's. That is all. hell he can't even present a weapon. He did not take bucky's. It has been proven time and time again. In a case like this, how can there not be reasonable doubt.

If bucky gets on the stand and says he was walking back to his car. And the game warden says he never made a move to harm a deer. Well you tell me what he done wrong? A loaded weapon? Whatever. The law does not say that a loaded weapon constitutes hunting.

The States Definition of HUNTING.

Hunting includes pursuing, shooting, killing, capturing and trapping wild
animals, wild fowl, wild birds, and all lesser acts, such as disturbing,
harrying or worrying, or placing, setting, drawing, or using any device used
to take wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, whether they result in taking or
not, and includes every act of assistance to any person in taking or
attempting to take wild animals, wild fowl, or wild birds. OR WALKING DOWN THE ROAD/RAIL ROAD WITH A LOADED GUN.

There I fixed it for everyone to see.

YOU ARE GUILTY NOW BUCKY!!!!

49er,
I knew you had a personal interest in this case, that something had happened in your past that made this personal to you. I didn't know if you had gotten a ticket or someone you knew had. 35 pages later and the truth comes out.

I feel a little like 49er,

Pursue- to follow in order to overtake or capture; chase

Shooting- to eject or impel or cause to be ejected or impelled by a sudden release of tension

Killing- the act of one that kills

Capturing-an act of catching, winning, or gaining control by force, stratagem, or guile

Trapping-a device for taking game or other animals; especially : one that holds by springing shut suddenly

Harrying-to make a pillaging or destructive raid on

Worrying-to touch or disturb something repeatedly


And of course he did not use any device to take a wild animal.

Come on guys really?


OH AND YES I DID GET A TICKET THIS YEAR. BUT IT WAS NOT AS BAD A MISJUDGEMENT AS THIS ONE.

Rob, just for arguments sake....

One drives to the hunting club, dressed in camo hunting clothes. One gets out of the truck, loads a 270 rifle, and walks 1/4 mile to a box stand in a cutover. One sits quietly for three hours, seeing nothing, and returns to the truck, unloads the rifle and returns home.

ANY hunting take place??

If so, then when??

troy

Ok Troy fare enough!!!

but there are still alot of grey areas even with your situation.

Did he stop and use the restroom? Did he make a phone call? Was it Daylight when he came out?

Just going by your little description, I would say he is hunting. However If questioned he may have stopped hunting when he got out of the Box stand. He also may not have started hunting till he got in the Box Stand.

Since you are putting me on the spot!! Let me ask you a question.

"you are my Game Warden, you find my truck at 4:00pm on Dec15th. You sit by my truck until I come out. It gets dark, it gets very very dark. (I am sure that most of us will agree that in Alabama on Dec 15th it is too dark to hunt about 5:00pm) anyway I am after 6:00pm when I come out. OH YEA MY WEAPON IS LOADED, I HAVE A FLASHLIGHT, I HAVE ON CAMO AND HUNTERS ORANGE. You ask me if I have been hunting this evening and I say yea!" BUY YOU HAVE NOT HEARD A SHOT!! HELL MAYBE YOU DID HEAR A SHOT COMING FROM WHERE YOU KNOW I HAVE BEEN HUNTING!!!! AFTER DARK!!!!!

What do you do? Hell change it to 7:00pm!!
What do you do Troy?

Game Wardens are not God, they cannot read minds or see the past or the future!!!! Just because a Game Warden says you are doing something does not mean that you are doing it.

by the way, I think this is just good conversation, by no means do I intend to be disrespectful to you or your old department. Not that I think you give a shitttt. but I want you to answer with your Mr Green Jeans uniform on.

To answer yer question...in 26 years on the job I checked a LOT of folks coming out after dark to their truck. From minutes after dark to an hour+ after dark. Never accused any of those of night hunting or wrote any such ticket.

some folks walk a long way, some get lost, it happens. Don't mean they are nighthunting.

Now ifin you are sitting in your box blind at 7pm, with gun loaded, and shining a flashlight????? I'd say ya got some splaining to do.....

troy

All I have been saying is, that same judgement should have been used with Bucky. You agree, you just don't want to say it.

Ha Ha

But if your sitting in your box stand at 7:00pm asleep. Are you hunting then? No light of course!!!

If you're sitting in a box blind during turkey season with a bushel of wheat on the ground 25 yards away....AND ASLEEP....are ya hunting over bait????

I actually had this happen...I wanted to charge him for "sleeping over bait", but the Capt. with me disagreed......

troy

I bet that was a laugh!!

I am going to get my old blind next year in Arkansas with Roy Sanderson. I would love for you to come. Maybe we can get together and talk bad about the Federal Game Wardens.

They got me one time for a goose that I shot. Damn bird fell and hit the land. busted open bad. I got up walked out to it. Looked down at it. Turned around and walked back to the pit blind. 4 hours later, shooting time over, I rode up to my camper. Got some nice papers from the FEDS, he had a Arkansas GW with him. But the Arkansas GW could not talk him out of writing the ticket. OH and it was a Snow goose. hell you don't even have to have a license after reg season to kill them. And there is no limit.

Spoting Scopes are hell out there. seen boys get busted for lead just because they were shooting high birds. and buckshot is hell on high geese.

None taken! Good post.

Matt

The biggest problem in all of this is the wording of the hunting definition. Under that definition you could charge a number of people who were not hunting.

A jogger jogging down the road jumps a deer. Are they hunting since the are worrying wildlife?

A photographer is looking for deer to take photographs is he hunting?

A deer standing on the side of the road., you slow your vehicle both for safety and to look. Are you hunting from a public road?

This list goes on and on.

You can use this hunting definition to charge almost anyone at anytime in a mass of areas where hunting is not allowed. This was never the intent of 9-11-257.

I was for a fact walking back to my truck after scouting for a place to hunt. Chris knew that this was my first time on the WMA. I introduced myself and talked to him for a short time when I checked in. He reccomended I look down by the river if I liked oaks. Brandau road where I was parked is a paved road that goes all the way to the river. I parked walked in on a dirt road that runs beside the track the wanders around through a lot of scrub brush and dead ends at the railroad. Under the definition of hunting as published by DCNR. I was illegal when I parked by Brandau road and got out of my truck. Illegal when I walked the road along the river since it was within 50 yards of the boundry and guilty when I was on the railroad track. By the LEO's definition I was pretty much guilty most of the time I was out of my truck on Perdido River WMA. Call the LEO's at Barbour County WMA. Bill Gray has known me for 20+ yrears I have never had a problem with them even thinking I was an unethical hunter. My experiences on Barbour go all the way back to the 70's. Troy you probably knew Billy Sharp. Furthermore I in no way want to reflect badly on the LEO's at Perdido River, but in my opininion this was not a just citation, both the AG opinion and other case precedence shows this. The DA knows this is a very difficult case for him to win in front of a jury, on May 9th we are suppose to try the case. I will keep you posted.

Regardless the outcome, you will never catch me on a railroad again or on Perdido River WMA.

Joggers and photographers don't have a means with them to kill the deer so, no, they're not hunting.

Law does not say you have to have somthing with you to kill deer. Read the hunting definition again.

Hunting includes pursuing, shooting, killing, capturing and trapping wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, harrying or worrying, or placing, setting, drawing, or using any device used to take wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, whether they result in taking or not, and includes every act of assistance to any person in taking or attempting to take wild animals, wild fowl, or wild birds.

And since this is the definition. Exactly which one did I violate?

[/quote]
I was for a fact walking back to my truck after scouting for a place to hunt.


[/quote]


If you was actually not hunting and only scouting for a place to hunt as you say, why did you have your rifle with you? For personal protection?

Right-of-way (transportation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Right-of-way.
Look up Right of way in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


A public right-of-way path that provides access to a field
A right-of-way is a strip of land that is granted, through an easement or other mechanism, for transportation purposes, such as for a trail, driveway, rail line or highway.[1] A right-of-way is reserved for the purposes of maintenance or expansion of existing services with the right-of-way. In the case of an easement, it may revert to its original owners if the facility is abandoned.
In the United States, railroad rights-of-way are considered private property by the respective railroad owners and by applicable state laws. Most U.S. railroads employ their own police forces, who can arrest and prosecute trespassers found on their rights-of-way. Some railroad rights-of-way include recreational rail trails.
In the United Kingdom, railway companies received the right to resume land for a right-of-way by a private act of Parliament.
Sometimes, in residential areas, building setbacks are based on a street right-of-way, as opposed to the front property line.

Look the weapon argument is bullshittt. And all hunters should be the 1st people screaming about it.

He was charged with HUNTING ON PUBLIC ROAD/RAILROAD

After reading the State of Alabama's definition of hunting. you make your argument that he was hunting. ONCE AGAIN HE WAS NOT CHARGED WITH TRESSPASSING.

The only argument that holds water is, was he hunting or not?

After reading the definition, I cannot find that he was hunting!!!! I don't think anyone else who is on this forum reading this can either.

UhhOhh...I think we have a bingo.

49er...it does appear that huntnfish2 has brought out a [possibly] valid point. An I've been quiet, respectful, and carefully read your views without prejudice. But I've yet to read nary a post where you took the side of a State of Alabama Game Warden. What's up, man ?

huntfish2,



What is your point? Are you saying I've lied about something or I'm trying to hide something here?

How does my knowlege of a bad incident involving 9-11-257 change anything that I have said? It's an overbroad and vague law that can be used to entrap innocent hunters or punish innocent conduct, and it needs to be changed, even if the incident I mentioned had never happened. Bucky and all those like him should not have to go thru this.

Is that the best argument you have in support of 9-11-257?

mission,



Do you think I'm lying about something too?



What are you implying? I've posted repeatedly on this forum that I've never been cited for a hunting or fishing violation, and that I've never had a problem with any of the game wardens I have encountered. My personal experience has nothing to do with 9-11-257 and how it is written or enforced anyhow. So, again, what's the point you are saying is valid?

Discussing problems with vague or overbroad laws and unauthorized rules and regulations that game wardens did not write but are expected to enforce is not a general attack on game wardens. On the other hand, if they use the vagueness to write easy tickets, then they deserve criticism for their own actions. If anything, eliminating problems and confusion involving well meaning hunters would help them do their job better as well as help prevent bad feelings between them and hunters.

Interpretation of laws and rules should never be left up to the discretion of an enforcement officer. It should be written clearly enough that the average citizen knows for sure what is expected of him. That's what our courts say.

Since you are interested in game wardens, here's a good guy/bad guy story for you to read. It's about good game wardens chasing a bad game warden. No doubt the bad game warden's word was given a lot of weight when he accused hunters of violations in court before he was finally caught:

The Early Years by Rusty Morrow [page 77 in the magazine]

Then you might want to ask Alan Andress and Corky Pugh if they have ever had a problem with a game warden:

State dove hunt shut down

I would have shot a deer if I were in a place that was legal to hunt, and it was somthing worth shoting.
Many of us walk boundry trails or firebreaks going into the woods.
Many of us park on the side of paved roads and walk in from there. Many of us pass through or come upon timber operations that we pass through. If you go with the LEO's definition that ticked me. All of those place mentioned rate the same ticket that I received. In my opinion, very few people that I have known hunting management areas for 30 years have not been in a situation that an LEO could not try to apply the same law.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL AND NEVER HAS BEEN IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA TO WALK THROUGH ANY OF THESE PLACES CARRYING A RIFLE OR BOW. BUT IF YOU ALLOW THE STATE TO CONTINUE TO BEND THE LAW AS THEY SEE FIT FOR CITATIONS, VERY SOON YOU WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.