Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Transporter & hunters fined in SE

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default Transporter & hunters fined in SE

    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/rural...ry/700125.html

    Looks like it was about the money! Kudo's to Trooper Baum, a former Kenai River guide!

  2. #2

    Default Above the law

    One more reason why a person should obey the law.

    A game warden and an officer......wow!

  3. #3
    Moderator kingfisherktn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ketchikan, AK
    Posts
    4,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/rural...ry/700125.html

    Looks like it was about the money! Kudo's to Trooper Baum, a former Kenai River guide!
    Trooper Baum is now a Ketchikan boy and is quite the standup guy. Definitely kudos to him.

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,601

    Default

    If they had the meat on the boat already why not just give it to the needy insted of dumping it. Hope the hunters lose big time also.

  5. #5
    Member Irish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    177

    Default

    I agree. It's hard to understand, why they'd get rid of the bears after they already had them on the boat. It's not like they had to haul it off a mountain or anything....they shot them on the beach!!!

  6. #6

    Default What?!

    double post
    Last edited by 270ti; 02-24-2009 at 21:44. Reason: double post

  7. #7

    Default What?!

    I think that the transporter is being unfairly targeted/fined in this case, from what I have read in the ADN. (they might have the story all screwed up) A transporters job is to take the hunters from point A to point B. No hunting assistance is allowed. Why do they refer to him as a "guide"? Why should the transporter be fined 10k and the hunters be allowed to get a reduced charge? The transporter wasn't on the beach with them! How is a transporter accountable for hunter he's NOT guiding?

    If the transporter had gone to the beach to retrieve the meat for the hunters or make sure they were being legal, I'm sure he would have been charged with "Illegal guiding"...

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    North Pole Alaska
    Posts
    166

    Default Rules

    If you see someone poaching do you report them?
    If I relied on the income I don't think the tip would have been big enough.
    Justice served.

  9. #9

    Default

    So you think it's fair for a guy who isn't guiding, to be fined 10k and loose his business for 3 years (who knows the actual cost of that) for not reporting someone else breaking the law?

    I'm not saying the guy is innocent, but the punishment seems excessive.

  10. #10
    Member AlaskaTrueAdventure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Paradise (Alaska)
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    As I read it right....The transporter was sited for failing to report a crime. He was aware of the dates involving necessary meat recover-salvaged, and when the meat did not need to be salvaged. He had game pelts on his transporter boat, but not the meat on a day that required both. That is illegal for the transporter unless he reports it. Then when he did not immediate report the failure to salvage issue, that is a second violation.

    If I were to speculate, which is always difficult to do, I would predict that the troopers suspected prior incidences of these violation and targeted the area and perhaps even that Transporter service.

    They, the shooters and the boat transsporter, were not cited until the three lied to the troopers about the specific kill date.

    People make errors. This appears to have been preventable by simply salvaging the bear meat, and properly tagging the bear pelts legally. Just like you and I do.

    Dennis
    AK TAGS

  11. #11
    Member tboehm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna AK
    Posts
    2,407

    Default They were wrong

    I can understand fining the transporter but it seems that this case is backwards and the powers at be were harder on the transporter than the guity poachers. Allowing them to plead guilty to a lesser charge and testify against the guy that was giving them a ride is BS. The transporter is the one that should have gotten the deal

  12. #12
    Member AlaskaTrueAdventure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Paradise (Alaska)
    Posts
    1,543

    Lightbulb common

    tboehm,
    I agree that it seems inappropriate to offer the lesser charge to the hunters, in order to obtain greater evidence against the professional transporter. It is also commonly, routinely done.
    Lets all be legal and careful out there where nobody is lookin....

    Dennis

  13. #13
    Member PatrickH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    253

    Default Makes sense

    The hunters will probably never be back. The transporter may operate again in the future. In addition all the other transporters in the state see what happened and may do the right thing next time. The state is getting the most possible prevention against future issues like this. All the transporter had to do was to tell them to keep the meat until they were back at the dock and out of his business. Or he could have been truthful to the troopers when they asked. I believe he could have been charged with obstruction of justice and lying to an investigator as well.
    I wonder what kind of issues the retired game warden will have from this. I bet he has been kicking himself every day for his stupidity. They should have waited another day before hunting if they wanted to stay legal. Maybe it is karma. I wonder if people in his home town know about his crime.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In a tent with my faithful dog...
    Posts
    11

    Wink "Stupid" actions....

    For shame, a former game warden AND a former military officer? Hmm, does that explain the state of the country we live in?? And, the transporter KNEW they were in violation...
    All together now, S-T-U-P-I-D.
    They should be on "American's Stupidist Hunting Videos"...why tranport the carcasses back to the beach? Could have just fed the fishes in lieu of the land critters...
    They ALL should have had the book thrown at them. For all those who are legal and law abiding, what a complete utter waste...
    Wonder how many extra deer, ducks and fish they've wasted all their years of hunting/fishing? I say give them all cement shoes and let's chum for salmon sharks...HAH!!

  15. #15
    Member Fuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    North Pole, AK
    Posts
    179

    Default It's the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    I think that the transporter is being unfairly targeted/fined in this case, from what I have read in the ADN. (they might have the story all screwed up) A transporters job is to take the hunters from point A to point B. No hunting assistance is allowed. Why do they refer to him as a "guide"? Why should the transporter be fined 10k and the hunters be allowed to get a reduced charge? The transporter wasn't on the beach with them! How is a transporter accountable for hunter he's NOT guiding?

    If the transporter had gone to the beach to retrieve the meat for the hunters or make sure they were being legal, I'm sure he would have been charged with "Illegal guiding"...
    My research may not be perfect, but AK statutes say"

    AS 08.54.740. Responsibility of Guide or Transporter For Violations.

    (b) A transporter who provides transportation services is equally responsible under AS 08.54.710 for a violation of a state or federal wildlife or game, guiding, or transportation services statute or regulation committed by a person while in the course of the person's employment for the transporter.When I dug deeper AS 08.54.710 talks about holding a hearing to determine if the game laws were violated and can then impose sanctions against the transporter. Just like we have to know the laws to hunt, the transporter has to know the laws to provide his services as well, and he has to know when they're being broken.

    V/R

    Fuse

  16. #16
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IvorySalmon02 View Post
    For shame, a former game warden AND a former military officer? Hmm, does that explain the state of the country we live in??
    Kinda like the folks in D.C. not paying their taxes

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default tramsporter

    I believe the punishment was approiate. Claiming ignorance is no option in the guiding/transporting world. Up-holding the hightest standards is paramount. That is why there is laws. If there was no laws, then this would happen everyday. It is what it is. Sounds like the transporter was just after additional money and not paying attention to knowing the actual job he was to fulfill. He is lucky he didn't loose his boat.
    On the other hand- The hunters are just as guilty. They pulled the trigger, and should be held responsible for their violations.

  18. #18

    Default

    I believe hunters are always primarily to blame if they break the law, regardless of whether they are being transported or even guided. Though I never use guides, I would appreciate them setting me straight if I were about to do something wrong, but would never count on it. It comes down to personal responsibility.

    In this case, the pilot admitted he looked the other way when he saw a violation. For that reason, I think he should have been punished too.

    Don Mulligan
    www.outdoorswithdon.com

  19. #19

    Default Namby-Pamby

    The transporter knew well the laws and failed to obey them, then he failed to report the trangressions of the hunters to the proper authorities (which was required by his license). The reason was MONEY,which he was paid by his clients to do a job. That makes him an accessory to the fact, NOT after the fact.
    I feel the $10,000 dolar fine was little more than a slap on the hand ( his clients may have paid him that much for his services); and that he should have lost his boat as well. That would have helped prohibit future violations and sent a message to would be's ; IT AIN'T WORTH IT !
    " Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."

    On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !

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
  •