Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Fairbanks father and son plead out to game violations

  1. #1

    Default Fairbanks father and son plead out to game violations

    Sorry if this was already posted, but didn't see it when I skimmed through.

    http://www.ktuu.com/news/fairbanks-f...,3910088.story

    Looks like they got hit pretty solidly, as they should have in my opinion, especially since they tried to hide it when confronted (based on the information in the story at least).

    I just thought the last note regarding the penalties was the best: The son "...also promised to obey all laws and commit no new fish and game offenses." I'm glad that is settled....

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    Sorry if this was already posted, but didn't see it when I skimmed through.

    http://www.ktuu.com/news/fairbanks-f...,3910088.story

    Looks like they got hit pretty solidly, as they should have in my opinion, especially since they tried to hide it when confronted (based on the information in the story at least).

    I just thought the last note regarding the penalties was the best: The son "...also promised to obey all laws and commit no new fish and game offenses." I'm glad that is settled....
    How would that have played out if HB 318 was in effect?

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wet eNuf View Post
    How would that have played out if HB 318 was in effect?
    I don't think they would have gotten off just from the fact that they did not turn themselves in. This appears to have been an intentional violation of the laws, not accidental. It wouldn't make much sense for them to intentionally break the laws, then turn themselves in right away (which includes forfitting the game meat) to get out of the penalty. These guys were caught by someone else and tried to deny it happening, so no breaks.

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    HB 318 covers nothing they did.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    So it wasn't enough that they already had a plane and could scout with it for the camp placement and the next day's shooting.....They had to HERD a moose with it......They can think about that as they look at pictures of their former airplane....

  6. #6
    Member TWB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    The promise to obey should have been probation.
    We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it. We get it rough enough at home; in towns and cities; in shops, offices, stores, banks anywhere that we may be placed

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    1,131

    Default

    Wow, that's the stiffest penalty I have ever seen. must have had a ****ty lawyer. I wish those poachers along turn again would've gotten hit like that. forfeit a plane? Ouch!!!!!
    I come home with an honestly earned feeling that something good has taken place. It makes no difference whether I got anything, it has to do with how the day was spent. Fred Bear

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollybug View Post
    Wow, that's the stiffest penalty I have ever seen. must have had a ****ty lawyer. I wish those poachers along turn again would've gotten hit like that. forfeit a plane? Ouch!!!!!
    It is nice to see someone get a pretty stiff penalty for once after seeing so many get off with less than a slap on the wrist. Hopefully they won't be the only ones to learn from their mistakes.

  9. #9
    Member alaskabliss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    As much as I appreciate the stiff penalty for this I had to wonder about one of the charges. They got poped for being in possesion of illegally taken game. They were charged for salvaging and taking care of the moose that was taken illegally. At least they didn't just leave it lay. So what would the purpose of charging someone with this be? Does this encourage people to not take the meat since it was taken illegally? I'm just having a hard time putting any sense to this.

  10. #10
    Member Grizzly Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskabliss View Post
    As much as I appreciate the stiff penalty for this I had to wonder about one of the charges. They got poped for being in possesion of illegally taken game. They were charged for salvaging and taking care of the moose that was taken illegally. At least they didn't just leave it lay. So what would the purpose of charging someone with this be? Does this encourage people to not take the meat since it was taken illegally? I'm just having a hard time putting any sense to this.
    Here's what they were charged with......
    Based on their investigation, troopers forwarded four charges for prosecution: taking game on the same day airborne, unlawful methods of taking game -- specifically, use of a cellphone -- as well as unlawful methods of herding game and unlawful possession of illegally taken game.


    The report just sid that Sr. had most of a large bull that he killed on the 20th. If he illegally took the animal, then it's not lawful for him to possess the moose
    "What is it about a beautiful sunny afternoon, with the birds singing and the wind rustling through the leaves, that makes you want to get drunk? --Jack Handy

  11. #11
    Member alaskabliss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly Man View Post
    The report just sid that Sr. had most of a large bull that he killed on the 20th. If he illegally took the animal, then it's not lawful for him to possess the moose
    I understand the charge but it just seems like getting double busted for the same thing. Of course he is going to have meat if he shot the animal. I guess it's a lot like getting charged for assault and murder since you beat someone to death.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,892

    Default

    They got the book thrown at them. They broke the law and they Paided for it. A little much if you ask me. I thinking taking the plane and hunting privileges were enuff.
    Now a bunch kids in village can go shoot a bunch caribou and let them rot and get there hand slapped.
    Do I give my friends advice? Jesus, no. They wouldn't take advice from me. Nobody should take advice from me. I haven't got a clue about anything..

  13. #13
    Member AKHunterNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Are they actually forfeiting the plane? The son was flying and it says his sentence was suspended for a year.

    Foster Sr. pled guilty to taking game on the same day airborne. He accepted several penalties, including:
    • A jail term of 90 days with 83 days suspended
    • A $10,000 fine with $5,000 suspended
    • Restitution of $1,000 for the moose
    • Forfeiture of the Cessna, a Winchester Model 70 rifle, and illegally taken moose meat, hide and antlers
    • Revocation of hunting privileges for five years
    • Probation for five years
    Foster II pled guilty to illegal possession or transportation of game, and accepted his penalties with a one-year suspended imposition of sentence:
    • A $2,000 fine
    • Forfeiture of the Cessna
    • A one-year revocation of hunting privileges
    Foster II also promised to obey all laws and commit no new fish and game offenses.
    "...arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe...Horrid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akmike30 View Post
    They got the book thrown at them. They broke the law and they Paided for it. A little much if you ask me. I thinking taking the plane and hunting privileges were enuff.
    Now a bunch kids in village can go shoot a bunch caribou and let them rot and get there hand slapped.
    Well, seeing as it was a plea agreement, they could have easily been hit a lot harder if the DA wanted to actually go to court with it. I don't know the details, but this must have seemed like a pretty good deal to those two for them to agree to it. I don't agree with how the past caribou situation was handled, but I am glad it is not being used as justification to let others off easy as well.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Loosing the plane had to hurt! i wonder what kind of cesna it was and how much it was worth

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKHunterNP View Post
    Are they actually forfeiting the plane? The son was flying and it says his sentence was suspended for a year.

    Foster Sr. pled guilty to taking game on the same day airborne. He accepted several penalties, including:
    • A jail term of 90 days with 83 days suspended
    • A $10,000 fine with $5,000 suspended
    • Restitution of $1,000 for the moose
    • Forfeiture of the Cessna, a Winchester Model 70 rifle, and illegally taken moose meat, hide and antlers
    • Revocation of hunting privileges for five years
    • Probation for five years

    Foster II pled guilty to illegal possession or transportation of game, and accepted his penalties with a one-year suspended imposition of sentence:
    • A $2,000 fine
    • Forfeiture of the Cessna
    • A one-year revocation of hunting privileges

    Foster II also promised to obey all laws and commit no new fish and game offenses.
    They are forfeiting the plane. It says that in your post 2x....I apologize if you're being sarcastic

  17. #17
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    The report says it was a Cessna 140, I did'nt think they made a 140, but could be wrong, probably a 150.

  18. #18

    Default

    A quick Google search seems to come up with a lot of hits on "cessna 140".

  19. #19
    Member Salmon-Thirty-Salmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    FL410
    Posts
    67

    Default

    These were built in the 1940's. Two seater, conventional gear (tail-dragger), the old rounded tail....and in the right hands and beautiful classic aircraft. Pre-cursor to the 150/152.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_140

  20. #20
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    Thanks guys, I should have looked them up.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •