Montana is changing it's tagging rules.

[grundy53]

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/apr/21/montana-changes-big-game-tagging-law-after-hunter-cited/

[Bob33]

I'm not sure what the issue was. Whether or not I liked the law, "immediately tag" sounds clear to me.

Washington law is the same.

[grundy53]

I like what they are changing it to. It's a transport tags. You shouldn't have to attach it until it's time to transport it. That way you don't get fined for taking a picture or field dressing right away.

[Bob33]

I like what they are changing it to. It's a transport tags. You shouldn't have to attach it until it's time to transport it. That way you don't get fined for taking a picture or field dressing right away.

I agree. I just wonder why those hunters that were cited are so upset.

[Hunterman]

I never could figure what the big deal about the "IMMEDIATLY tagging" the animal as long as the tag is validated. Just another B.S. way for the state to screw people.

Hunterman(Tony)

[bobcat]

I like what they are changing it to. It's a transport tags. You shouldn't have to attach it until it's time to transport it. That way you don't get fined for taking a picture or field dressing right away.

I agree. I just wonder why those hunters that were cited are so upset.

I think it's obvious why they were upset. There was no intent on their part to pack that elk out without tagging it first. So what if they took some pictures before notching the tag. The elk was tagged when the game warden showed up. So, it wasn't tagged for 20 minutes, okay. They didn't tag it "immediately" according to the game warden. Write the hunter a ticket and leave it at that. Why did he confiscate the bull and then drive around with it in the back of his truck, ALL DAY,  and it was un-skinned, AND it was a warm day (in the 70's.) Then for the game warden to say he donated the meat, when everyone knows there's no way that whole elk wasn't spoiled from not being taken care of properly.

You were joking, right Bob?

[idahohuntr]

I like what they are changing it to. It's a transport tags. You shouldn't have to attach it until it's time to transport it. That way you don't get fined for taking a picture or field dressing right away.

I agree. I just wonder why those hunters that were cited are so upset.

  I would be outraged.  Obviously the hunter did nothing wrong as the prosecutor dropped it 3 days after the initial ticket.  This is the kind of bs that infuriates me with some game wardens...way too many of them do not have the common sense of a standard wheelbarrow.  FWP should issue an apology to the hunter.     

[grundy53]

I agree. Sad that elk has to go to waste because the tag wasn't notched immediately.

[andrew_in_idaho]

I can understand forgetting to tag an animal while taking pics. I can even understand forgetting until partway through the field dressing process. But how long can you wait to tag an animal. The intent of the law is so a guy doesn't get his animal home while "forgetting" to tag it and decide since he still has a valid tag he will go back for a second animal. If you are sitting over a carcass for only 20 minutes and still haven't tagged it yet how is the game warden to know you meant to tag it but just forgot. In his eyes maybe you are just trying to pull a fast one on him

[bobcat]

I can understand forgetting to tag an animal while taking pics. I can even understand forgetting until partway through the field dressing process. But how long can you wait to tag an animal. The intent of the law is so a guy doesn't get his animal home while "forgetting" to tag it and decide since he still has a valid tag he will go back for a second animal. If you are sitting over a carcass for only 20 minutes and still haven't tagged it yet how is the game warden to know you meant to tag it but just forgot. In his eyes maybe you are just trying to pull a fast one on him

But it was tagged, when the game warden showed up. He had watched them from a  distance with binoculars and that's how he knew they didn't put the tag on the elk immediately. But, they did tag it. They hadn't moved it yet. What's the difference if they did it in  five minutes or twenty minutes?

[grundy53]

I can understand forgetting to tag an animal while taking pics. I can even understand forgetting until partway through the field dressing process. But how long can you wait to tag an animal. The intent of the law is so a guy doesn't get his animal home while "forgetting" to tag it and decide since he still has a valid tag he will go back for a second animal. If you are sitting over a carcass for only 20 minutes and still haven't tagged it yet how is the game warden to know you meant to tag it but just forgot. In his eyes maybe you are just trying to pull a fast one on him

It's a transport tag. Tag it before you transport it. Problem solved. No need to waste an elk.

[Bob33]

The tag was notched. It wasn't attached. The law said it was to be attached immediately. Good or bad, that was the law and it was violated.

[andrew_in_idaho]

According to the article they notched the tag but didn't attach it to the animal. Either way 5 minutes, 20 minutes or 2 days the law has always read that tagging is the first thing you do upon recovering an animal.

[bobcat]

Mostly what I disagree with is the confiscation of the elk for a very minor violation and then letting the entire elk go to waste. The charge was dropped! Why did the hunter not get his elk back? The state of Montana stole it from him.

[grundy53]

Mostly what I disagree with is the confiscation of the elk for a very minor violation and then letting the entire elk go to waste. The charge was dropped! Why did the hunter not get his elk back? The state of Montana stole it from him.

I agree.

[andrew_in_idaho]

According to the article the elk was donated to a foodbank and therefore not wasted. It is kinda hard to go back and return the meat after the fact. Maybe they should've given him a new tag when they dropped the charges

[grundy53]

The tag was notched. It wasn't attached. The law said it was to be attached immediately. Good or bad, that was the law and it was violated.

Apparently the court disagrees with you.

[Bob33]

The tag was notched. It wasn't attached. The law said it was to be attached immediately. Good or bad, that was the law and it was violated.

Apparently the court disagrees with you.

Not true. The county attorney dropped the charges.

[bobcat]

This is a post from the hunter, copied/pasted from another forum:

I gave respect with a prayer, discussed removal plan, took pictures, validated and tagged my elk and started field dressing. These were my actions "immediately" after dropping my elk.

That took 21 minutes according to the young warden.The warden and cameraman showed up 10 to 15 minutes later and that proof is recorded. I never knew I was being watched, or timed until I noticed two men wearing camouflage jackets, 100 yards away walking towards me. When they were closer, the warden raised his arm and identified himself. I waved back to them and in a good humored voice said, "Are you guys here to help me"? The reply was a "laugh". Then when the warden saw the 20 feet of open water that separated us he said... You know it's early and it's cold. I'm going to be out here all day and I really don't want to get wet and muddy right now. Will you bring me your tag? Already being wet to the waist, (and having no clue as to what was about to unfold) I said "Sure! I'm already wet". Then removed the tag from the frosted left antler and wadded across the water and handed it to him.

It's not my intention to debate the MT Hunting Regulations in this reply or to bad mouth wardens in general. My intent is to clear up a few statements that suggest I had some kind of intent to break the law... and a few comments that question my hunting ethics. And then to the comments which suggest that some kind of verbal abuse or arrogance on my part happened, or using my out-of-state status as an excuse is TOTALLY wrong. My only mention of how tagging is done in Minnesota was in reply to the warden's question... "So how do they do it in Minnesota"? When it was apparent he was confiscating my elk I asked, what will happen to it? He said "The head will be kept as evidence, the meat will be processed and frozen until the outcome of your court date". If that is common practice, why didn't it happen that way? Maybe because my bull rode around for 6 to 7 hours after being killed, in bright sun and 71 degree temperatures before arriving at a processor has something to do with it.

I've read hundreds of replies to my story, which 95% were written by hunters who can understand why this should have never happened. Yes, I was very excited to take this bull within the first few minutes of the 2014 season. Yes, according to the letter of the law, I should have tagged this elk when I reached it. But this is where my perception of immediately does not fit the punishment handed out by a "star struck", overzealous, and very unreasonable warden who has a severe lack of common sense.

Guess I shouldn't have felt the need to pray over the beautiful animal I just killed, or record this event with a few pictures. After 50 some years of hunting, 29 years in business as a guide on Lake Superior and never having a citation for a serious crime of any kind, I can assure those who doubt my hunting/fishing ethics are wrong in doing so. My interactions with the MN-DNR have always been on good terms and I won't let this incident sour my opinion on wardens (of any state) in general. With that being said, it's my opinion that the warden who took my elk, has no business doing anything that involves wearing a badge. He used his position to be on a reality TV show. Simple as that!

I have been told that this event will never be aired on the "Wardens" reality TV show. The reason for that is this video will not only back up our (my brother and I) statements, it will show that this young warden had only one thing in mind and that was making his "bust" for the TV show. I've been told that the FWP would like to know what will make me happy. I have asked for private viewing of the UNEDITED VERSION of this event... with the warden, his supervisors, the director of FWP, my brother and I, and a reporter or two in the room. Let's get the truth out at last and put an end to the B.S. I have also been told by the owner/producer of "Muddy Boot Productions" (in my own home) that I would get a copy of the video or a link on line to see it. That has not happened. Videos have a number running through the frames so it will easy to see what and how much has been removed... if anything.

As for restitution, my license and expenses!... as I did not hunt in MT to bring back a set of horns. The other very distressing factor of this mess is what was taken from us as a family. It's something that can never be replaced... and even if it could, what value would you put on it, had it happened to you?

As late as this is on your forum, thanks for reading,
Jim

[grundy53]

The tag was notched. It wasn't attached. The law said it was to be attached immediately. Good or bad, that was the law and it was violated.

Apparently the court disagrees with you.

Not true. The county attorney dropped the charges.

Then legally he didn't break the law. Isn't the county prosecutor a part of the court?

[andrew_in_idaho]

Just because they dropped the charges doesn't mean he didn't break the law

[grundy53]

Just because they dropped the charges doesn't mean he didn't break the law

Legally that's exactly what that means.

[grundy53]

With the county dropping the charges that fast and the game department doing the hot foot. I would say this game warden probably over stepped a bit. Not to mention the speed in which the law got changed.

[Bob33]

Just because they dropped the charges doesn't mean he didn't break the law

Legally that's exactly what that means.

There is a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty".

Lots of lawbreakers are never charged, and many that are charged are not convicted.

[grundy53]

Just because they dropped the charges doesn't mean he didn't break the law

Legally that's exactly what that means.

There is a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty".

Lots of lawbreakers are never charged, and many that are charged are not convicted.

He wasn't found not guilty. Last time I checked, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

[bobcat]

Exactly, he was not proven guilty, yet his elk was still taken from him.

[grundy53]

You would think that with a professional camera man filming the whole thing it would have been an open and shut case. Slam dunk. The whole thing caught on high definition. Yet the prosecutor dropped the charges and the game department didn't make any protest... I wonder why?

[zike]

Not to highjack this thread, but 35+ years ago I was hunting with this guy. I had a cow tag that I wanted to fill, it would have been my first elk. Well the neighbor shoots a calf without my knowledge, he guts it and leaves it lay. Doesn't come and get me, at dark I meet up with him he tells me what he did. So we go in to retrieve it and the GW is there, he confesses and said I had nothing to do with it. They take us up to the guard station where they were sucking on 1/2 gal of BV and gave him a shoot out of season ticket and me some bs ticket. So the guy goes to court and the GW "lost" his ticket  book so they dismiss his charges. They copy his ticket and try and charge me with his charges. Well they dismiss the charges against me. So I run into the local GW and he said the elk was in cold storage and if I want it I should go and get it. I go to claim it and it was never turned in, my guess was it turned into camp meat for a bunch of drunken GW.