winkhink
Member
Didn't know they did this but in reading it found the authorities asking for public help in a case. Would this be ok to post as some folks in here might be able to help out and solve a case?
Blotter Question
- Thread starter winkhink
- Start date
AKmud
Moderator
Link?
Link?
Not sure you have the right link in there. I didn't see any information about what you were mentioning, just a personal caribou hunting website...
Link?
Not sure you have the right link in there. I didn't see any information about what you were mentioning, just a personal caribou hunting website...
AlleninAlaska
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,164
- Reaction score
- 9
That link is his signature. He didn't post the Blotter link. He was just asking if it would be permissable to post a Blotter where the AST were asking for assistance in solving a case.
winkhink
Member
no, didn't post the link to the blotter as it has been posted in here before and want to stay within forum rules. Just asking if OK, the blot was from the 28th of Sept
martentrapper
New member
I believe it was Mud, who said it was OK to post links. Either post it or let us know where it is posted on here already.
Akres
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 8,276
- Reaction score
- 465
Mud
Mud
Are you qualifying the attachment of links to sites with a possibility of exposing readers to negative perception or fact? From a legal standpoint, I am quite sure lawyers know how to derive information on how one gets linked from one website to the next and where the link came from. Pretty simple stuff. But hey if it is permissible, so be it. Lets Roll On
Mud
Are you qualifying the attachment of links to sites with a possibility of exposing readers to negative perception or fact? From a legal standpoint, I am quite sure lawyers know how to derive information on how one gets linked from one website to the next and where the link came from. Pretty simple stuff. But hey if it is permissible, so be it. Lets Roll On
AKmud
Moderator
Links
Links
No one said links were a problem.
Links
No one said links were a problem.
W
Webmaster
Guest
Let's do it this way....
Let's do it this way....
Troopers are asking for help in solving an illegal cow moose kill near Clam Gulch. You can read the dispatch on the Trooper website. It's case 06-86130.
David
Let's do it this way....
Troopers are asking for help in solving an illegal cow moose kill near Clam Gulch. You can read the dispatch on the Trooper website. It's case 06-86130.
David
wildlife crimes / punishment ? 
wildlife crimes / punishment ?
Ok since the the blotter link was there I decided to look through it. There are two instances listed in 9E where hunters were guided & took sub leagal moose.
At first I thought the fine was pretty low, especially since it doens't say they turned themselves in. Then I thought mabey it was that low because the guides assisted / encouraged in the decision to harvest a sub leagal animal.
So why weren't the guides charged ? In the 2nd case the client shot two moose. How does this happen? 1 illeagel one wasn't enough? Both parties ( guide & client ) involved in this instance should be fined a lot more than $250 I would think.
Am I missing something here ? The fine seems very inadequate to me.
wildlife crimes / punishment ?
Ok since the the blotter link was there I decided to look through it. There are two instances listed in 9E where hunters were guided & took sub leagal moose.
At first I thought the fine was pretty low, especially since it doens't say they turned themselves in. Then I thought mabey it was that low because the guides assisted / encouraged in the decision to harvest a sub leagal animal.
So why weren't the guides charged ? In the 2nd case the client shot two moose. How does this happen? 1 illeagel one wasn't enough? Both parties ( guide & client ) involved in this instance should be fined a lot more than $250 I would think.
Am I missing something here ? The fine seems very inadequate to me.
Alaskantrapper
New member
Hi Marmot,
A F&G officer in the field can suggest what he thinks is a fair punishment (what kind of punishment he asks for from the DA). FOr instance $500 fine, $300 of it suspended with 2 years probation....etc. Those blotters are just for "general" information and are not written in stone. Half the time your lucky if they even have the names, charges etc right.
There have been times I have looked up stuff I know about and it hasnt been there. Sometimes it will be there but the situation was nothing like it was reported.
Deb
A F&G officer in the field can suggest what he thinks is a fair punishment (what kind of punishment he asks for from the DA). FOr instance $500 fine, $300 of it suspended with 2 years probation....etc. Those blotters are just for "general" information and are not written in stone. Half the time your lucky if they even have the names, charges etc right.
There have been times I have looked up stuff I know about and it hasnt been there. Sometimes it will be there but the situation was nothing like it was reported.
Deb
AlleninAlaska
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,164
- Reaction score
- 9
I must be missing something. I read through the blotter and saw that 2 people were cited for sublegal moose taken in a closed area, 14A and 16A. I thought both units were open until Sept. 30 for moose. What am I missing here?
Alaskantrapper
New member
One other thing you might keep in mind, is that these were reduced to violations instead of a Class A misdemeanor charge. First time offenders usualy get some sort of break after they plea with the courts.
AlleninAlaska
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,164
- Reaction score
- 9
Plea bargaining is illegal in the State of Alaska. Or is that should be illegal in the State of Alaska.
Alaskantrapper
New member
Hi Allen,
It should be, but its not. In some cases I can see it being useful, but in others I say throw the book at em
Michael Strahan
webmaster
Answer for Marmot
Answer for Marmot
There's another possibility here, but note that anything we say beyond what is actually listed in the dispatch is pure speculation (unless someone out there has hard facts that we don't know about).
Even though this was a guided hunt, it is possible that the hunter went out and shot the animal on his own while the guide was in camp, or that the hunter shot the critter against the guide's recommendation. The law clearly states that guides are responsible for illegal activity that happens while they are guiding, however there may be a certain amount of leniency exercised by the court in extenuating circumstances. The law reads that guides are to attempt to prevent violations by any means short of using force and that they are obligated to report any violations committed by clients. Needless to say, violations do occur that are not the fault of the guide. Sometimes the hunter does what he or she wants, regardless of the instruction by their guide (you wouldn't believe some of the things that go on). Anyway, perhaps what happened fell into this category; hence the leniency by the court toward the guide.
For those who might be thinking that the guides and the courts have a cozy arrangement, I can assure you that the opposite is the case. I've had the troopers land a helicopter on the spotting hill when we were glassing for sheep, and scare every animal out of the drainage just to check us again, when they had checked us three days prior. And we have no violations on our record and have never been to court! Most of them are just trying to do a good job, but some of them are a little over zealous. I would not want to be in their shoes, by the way. Every one you check is armed, and is not usually happy to see you. It's a thankless task.
Anyway, this could be some possible explanations to the two cases you pointed out.
-Mike
Answer for Marmot
There's another possibility here, but note that anything we say beyond what is actually listed in the dispatch is pure speculation (unless someone out there has hard facts that we don't know about).
Even though this was a guided hunt, it is possible that the hunter went out and shot the animal on his own while the guide was in camp, or that the hunter shot the critter against the guide's recommendation. The law clearly states that guides are responsible for illegal activity that happens while they are guiding, however there may be a certain amount of leniency exercised by the court in extenuating circumstances. The law reads that guides are to attempt to prevent violations by any means short of using force and that they are obligated to report any violations committed by clients. Needless to say, violations do occur that are not the fault of the guide. Sometimes the hunter does what he or she wants, regardless of the instruction by their guide (you wouldn't believe some of the things that go on). Anyway, perhaps what happened fell into this category; hence the leniency by the court toward the guide.
For those who might be thinking that the guides and the courts have a cozy arrangement, I can assure you that the opposite is the case. I've had the troopers land a helicopter on the spotting hill when we were glassing for sheep, and scare every animal out of the drainage just to check us again, when they had checked us three days prior. And we have no violations on our record and have never been to court! Most of them are just trying to do a good job, but some of them are a little over zealous. I would not want to be in their shoes, by the way. Every one you check is armed, and is not usually happy to see you. It's a thankless task.
Anyway, this could be some possible explanations to the two cases you pointed out.
-Mike
