Hawgnman
Guest
There is an interesting legal twist to this case, Whole article here.
Basically a hunter legally shot a deer, he tracked the deer onto another property and gutted the deer took it to a processor. The property owner where the deer was gutted called the game warden. They took DNA from the gut pile and matched it to the antlers and meat at the processor. He pleaded guilty to trespassing and paid the fine. They the state game commission wanted 28,000 to replace the deer. But they have the deer in their possession. If he had not trespassed the deer is still dead.
I don't condone the trespassing, but I see no basis for the additional $28,000.
What do you think?
Basically a hunter legally shot a deer, he tracked the deer onto another property and gutted the deer took it to a processor. The property owner where the deer was gutted called the game warden. They took DNA from the gut pile and matched it to the antlers and meat at the processor. He pleaded guilty to trespassing and paid the fine. They the state game commission wanted 28,000 to replace the deer. But they have the deer in their possession. If he had not trespassed the deer is still dead.
I don't condone the trespassing, but I see no basis for the additional $28,000.
What do you think?