# Man sentenced for wolf shooting in UP



## cadillacjethro (Mar 21, 2007)

Newman_tkcl said:


> I have known this man all my life and he would never do what hes being accused of doing (and didnt do what they accused him of doing). He is a respectable business owner, has a beautiful family and is one of the nicest men I know. If he actually wouldve done this then the courts wouldve thrown the book at him!!! He went up north on said weekend and was hunting with a group of guys, didnt shoot anything and went back home, then the next weekend they all went back up to hunt and the DNR came up to him and asked if he was hunting in this spot last weekend. He told he had and that he hadnt shot anything. They interrogated him for hours that day and he kept telling him he didnt do it. The only reason they believed he shot the thing was because his blind was the closest to where they found the wolf lying. Tell me this, do you think he would shoot a wolf right where he hunts and then just leave it lying there with a collar on it and not get rid of it then come back to the same spot the next weekend to hunt again? NO!!! Someone couldve shot the thing from the road and it ran and died by his blind! Why do you think he got let off with just a minor fine? Its because he didnt do it and they couldnt prove that he did do it so the Judge wouldnt give him a large penalty. The Feds got involved in this case and did a through investigation and even went as far as confiscating his gun and tapping his phone and cell phone lines! If they had ANY hard evidence that he was the shooter then they wouldve brought it up in court. They had no incriminating evidence from the phone records and they had his gun, the Feds could very easily test it and compare it to the wound on the wolf. Now this mans name has been run in the mud because a bunch of tree-hugging wolf lovers want someone to pay for it- not nessicarlly the person that actually did it- just someone! Great justice system we have here in Michigan, all they want is the $$$.


I too have known this young man most of his life. For me to believe this, I would have to hear it from him. Hard working and stand up guy as is his whole family.


----------



## duxdog (Apr 13, 2008)

Well you know how the criminal justice system works......guilty til you prove to me your innocent. I have been around LEO's most of my life. Any one that is in that same "crowd" knows this to be true whether they will admit it outside of that circle or not.


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

With regards to him being not guilty, there was more evidence than was revealed. He did it 100% and plead guilty in an effort to avoid Federal charges.

I don't doubt he is a good guy, he just screwed up. He lucked out, as the punishment is pretty easy if you ask me. Live and learn. Next time don't shoot one with a necklace .....


----------



## sslopok (Aug 24, 2009)

Doesn't matter how good of a person he is. We all know even the best/nicest person does stupid s*** sometimes. I know I have.
sslopok


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

That dang Rusty must be an undercover cop, or maybe he fished with one
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

2PawsRiver said:


> That dang Rusty must be an undercover cop, or maybe he fished with one
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Never fish with a cop, they drink all yer beer.


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

2PawsRiver said:


> That dang Rusty must be an undercover cop, or maybe he fished with one
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I keep my ears open and my mouth shut. It's gotten me this far in life....


----------



## DFJISH (Mar 30, 2009)

_"With regards to him being not guilty, there was more evidence than was revealed."_
I, for one, would like to hear the additional evidence. The case is over so it should be available to the public.

*Newman-TKCL's *post reads as convincing that the guy didn't shoot the wolf. We all know about incidents of the conviction of innocent people. I'm just a bystander reading conflicting posts. I'm interested enough to want more facts. Thanks.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

DFJISH said:


> _"With regards to him being not guilty, there was more evidence than was revealed."_
> I, for one, would like to hear the additional evidence. The case is over so it should be available to the public.
> 
> *Newman-TKCL's *post reads as convincing that the guy didn't shoot the wolf. We all know about incidents of the conviction of innocent people. I'm just a bystander reading conflicting posts. I'm interested enough to want more facts. Thanks.


Hmmmmm, can't think of one that I know of first hand.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

DFJISH said:


> _"With regards to him being not guilty, there was more evidence than was revealed."_
> I, for one, would like to hear the additional evidence. The case is over so it should be available to the public.
> 
> *Newman-TKCL's *post reads as convincing that the guy didn't shoot the wolf. We all know about incidents of the conviction of innocent people. I'm just a bystander reading conflicting posts. I'm interested enough to want more facts. Thanks.


 
Newman-TKCL has one post on here. Believe them if you want. That same post is on several newspaper website comment sections with regards to the shooting.

I will say nothing more than there was "ballistic evidence" that linked the accused to the wolf.

If he was innocent, why not fight it in court? Why roll over and accept it?

Newman-TKCL said "Great justice system we have here in Michigan, all they want is the $$$."  I would imagine the court costs outweight the $2,000 in fines levied. So actually the state took a hit on that too.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Even the DNR knows we have too many but the DNR is still investigating the killing of 35 more.



> http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/544362.html?nav=5067
> 
> The MINING JOURNAL
> 
> ...


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Even the DNR knows we have too many but the DNR is still investigating the killing of 35 more.



Maybe because that's part of their job....investigate the possibility of illegal killing, or mortality caused via natural conditions, identify the causes of the deaths.....if the estimated deer population had a 5%-7% increase in mortality, you'd want to know the causes with that. The difference is what one would be more concerned about, wolves or deer.


----------



## bigsablemike (Apr 26, 2005)

passport said:


> They should pay him for smoking the dam thing. Either let us start shoot them or round em all up and let them loose in Wayne county, there the dip chits that are so dam proud of em.
> 
> I hate them and yotes, our fore fathers went out of there way to kill all of them and we, like dumb ***, bring em right back. Lets just hope that history will repete it self again.


 
people like you are just plain stupid.
hopefully your nuts are cut.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

bigsablemike said:


> people like you are just plain stupid.
> hopefully your nuts are cut.


Excellent:lol::lol:


----------



## wouldrichest (Jul 11, 2010)

hda31 said:


> I dont' know about how stiff the penalty was but, maybe the legislators and beaurocrats will listen to the Yoopers about the wolves when they start shooting them, because they sure don't listen when they talk about getting a hunting season on them, HA, doubt it


Yeah but it doesn't sound like this guy was a yooper....Story said he was from Clare i think....


----------



## wouldrichest (Jul 11, 2010)

tjstebb said:


> Today a judge sentenced the man that shot the wolf in the muzzle loader season....
> 
> He was fined 500.00 for killing it plus restituion of 1500.00 and lost his license for 1 year.
> 
> ...


I dont' know about how stiff the penalty was but, maybe the legislators and beaurocrats will listen to the Yoopers about the wolves when they start shooting them, because they sure don't listen when they talk about getting a hunting season on them, HA, doubt it


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

wouldrichest said:


> I dont' know about how stiff the penalty was but, maybe the legislators and beaurocrats will listen to the Yoopers about the wolves when they start shooting them, because they sure don't listen when they talk about getting a hunting season on them, HA, doubt it



Then maybe those that are ignorant enough to kill the wolves will listen when they are out of pocket $2000. Advocating the killing of these animals is not what is needed to fix the problem. With only two posts on these forums and an outside link in your signature there is alot to learn...welcome to the site.


----------



## tjstebb (Jun 5, 2006)

TrekJeff said:


> Then maybe those that are ignorant enough to kill the wolves will listen when they are out of pocket $2000. Advocating the killing of these animals is not what is needed to fix the problem. With only two posts on these forums and an outside link in your signature there is alot to learn...welcome to the site.


 
 + no hunting license for 3 years and 90 days in jail should be mandatory for killing ANY animal out of season. And the feds should also get any assjack that shoots something on the feds list!!!!


tjstebb


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

[ no hunting license for 3 years and 90 days in jail should be mandatory for killing ANY animal out of season. And the feds should also get any assjack that shoots something on the feds list!!!! tjstebb[/QUOTE]

Lucky for us. You don't get to make important decisions.:lol:

Judge Graham is a fair man and his judgement is also. Those of us who pay attention as opposed to just shooting from the hip. Understand that this situation is going to take some time. But it will get sorted out. Until then. It's against the law to shoot a wolf. So, expect to pay a fine if you get caught. 

ATB


----------



## tjstebb (Jun 5, 2006)

Mickey Finn said:


> [ no hunting license for 3 years and 90 days in jail should be mandatory for killing ANY animal out of season. And the feds should also get any assjack that shoots something on the feds list!!!! tjstebb


Lucky for us. You don't get to make important decisions.:lol:

Judge Graham is a fair man and his judgement is also. Those of us who pay attention as opposed to just shooting from the hip. Understand that this situation is going to take some time. But it will get sorted out. Until then. It's against the law to shoot a wolf. So, expect to pay a fine if you get caught. 

ATB[/QUOTE]


I just think it should be clean cut....You should know if you pull the trigger this is what you are gonna get instead of well if i pull the trigger i MAY get a judge that don't like the wolves either so i will just get a fine because he has to do something!

Why should there be a difference in one assjack to another assjack poacher? As stated earlier there is way to much variation in the law. It should be you do the crime this is what you get PERIOD....

tjstebb


----------



## Newman_tkcl (Jul 7, 2010)

Rustyaxecamp said:


> With regards to him being not guilty, there was more evidence than was revealed. He did it 100% and plead guilty in an effort to avoid Federal charges.
> 
> I don't doubt he is a good guy, he just screwed up. He lucked out, as the punishment is pretty easy if you ask me. Live and learn. Next time don't shoot one with a necklace .....


I too, would like to hear this other evidence that you say you have? So youre saying the ballistics matched up? Why was that not brought up in the court hearing if that were the case? Why didnt the judge give him jail time if that were, in fact, the case? You really think if they had evidence like that the court would have only fined him $2000?? REALLY??? I have to laugh at that because they wouldve of taken him for everything he had if they had proof of that nature. They would have convicted him of a felony and wouldnt let him EVER own a gun or hunt again if that were true! Its easy to talk about the case when you dont have the facts. Actually he did NOT plead guilty- seems like you would know this since you know about all this evidence that was left out of the courtroom- he plead No Contest to the charges brought up against him, per his lawyers direct advise. He has spent hours under the microscope regarding this and NEVER once did he say he had anything to do with this shooting. He never admitted guilt, his only option was to plead No Contest because his lawyer told him if he plead not guilty and it went to a trial then he could be facing a felony, jail time and a large amount of fines. All it would take was ONE person out of a jury to be a tree hugger and why would you risk that when the state gives you a bargain to just get out of it with some minor fines? It wouldve been stupid to try your luck in a trial. He wanted it to be over so he could move on with his life. BTW- the feds also confiscated EVERY mans gun that was on that hunt with him, they will never get them back. Yes, GREAT justice system we have there! There are PEOPLE getting shot and robbed all the time and they want to spend all this time and money trying to figure out who shot a WOLF?!? I wish they would be this enthusiastic about murders; maybe they should spend some more time looking into the real problems in this state.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

> All it would take was ONE person



Not.


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

Newman_tkcl said:


> I too, would like to hear this other evidence that you say you have? So you&#8217;re saying the ballistics matched up? Why was that not brought up in the court hearing if that were the case? Why didn&#8217;t the judge give him jail time if that were, in fact, the case? You really think if they had evidence like that the court would have only fined him $2000?? REALLY??? I have to laugh at that because they would&#8217;ve of taken him for everything he had if they had proof of that nature. They would have convicted him of a felony and wouldn&#8217;t let him EVER own a gun or hunt again if that were true! It&#8217;s easy to talk about the case when you don&#8217;t have the facts. Actually he did NOT plead guilty- seems like you would know this since you know about all this evidence that was left out of the courtroom- he plead No Contest to the charges brought up against him, per his lawyers direct advise. He has spent hours under the microscope regarding this and NEVER once did he say he had anything to do with this shooting. He never admitted guilt, his only option was to plead No Contest because his lawyer told him if he plead not guilty and it went to a trial then he could be facing a felony, jail time and a large amount of fines. All it would take was ONE person out of a jury to be a tree hugger and why would you risk that when the state gives you a bargain to just get out of it with some minor fines? It would&#8217;ve been stupid to try your luck in a trial. He wanted it to be over so he could move on with his life. BTW- the feds also confiscated EVERY man&#8217;s gun that was on that hunt with him, they will never get them back. Yes, GREAT justice system we have there! There are PEOPLE getting shot and robbed all the time and they want to spend all this time and money trying to figure out who shot a WOLF?!? I wish they would be this enthusiastic about murders; maybe they should spend some more time looking into the real problems in this state&#8230;&#8230;.



Seems like you have alot of facts...where did you get them? Pleading no contest has only one benefit over pleading not guilty. Other than that you may as well plead guilty. If it's even offered as a plea, not all crimes have this luxury. That benefit is that the crime cannot be used in future cases against said individual. And when you say "his only option was to plead No Contest because his lawyer told him if he plead not guilty and it went to a trial then he could be facing a felony, jail time and a large amount of fines.", you show that you really don't understand the law. The decision immediatly goes to sentencing via the judge. If he was charged with a felony and plead no contest, then he is guilty of a felony....there is no gray area there and the court then can prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, including fines, jail time and the nature of the charge. And this only shelters him from future "civil" charges...it in no way takes any authority away from the feds.

_A nolo contendere plea has the same immediate effects as a plea of guilty, but may have different residual effects or consequences in future actions. For instance, a conviction arising from a __nolo contendere plea is subject to any and all penalties, fines, and forfeitures of a conviction from a guilty plea in the same case, and can be considered as an aggravating factor in future criminal actions. However, unlike a guilty plea, a defendant in a __nolo contendere plea may not be required to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allocution"]allocute[/ame] the charges. This means that a __nolo contendere conviction typically may not be used to establish either [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence_per_se"]negligence per se[/ame], malice, or whether the acts were committed at all in later civil proceedings related to the same set of facts as the criminal prosecution_


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

No Contest is like pleading guilty without actually saying it. If he didn't do it, why not plead not guilty and countersue for hunter harrassment? 


Per the original DNR press release: "A conviction for the illegal killing of a gray wolf could result in a maximum of 90 days in jail, a fine of $1000, and reimbursement of $1500. " 

Certain crimes have certain mandatory punishments established. They knocked off $$, jail time and any Federal charges because he played ball. Cooperation typically leads to lessening the punishment.



My final comments:


Again, I have no ill will towards the guy, and am not, in any way, trying to drag his name down or anything. He screwed up, we all do it to some degree. 

For the past 15 years, I have hunted the UP for bow, rifle and muzzleloader every year, in addition to trapping and small game hunting. I hear wolves every night at my property. Last year I saw 1 deer during the first 6 days of rifle season. I haven't shot a deer from my property in 3 years. I am 100% sure that the wolves have impacted my hunting. I have many friends and family members strung from St. Ignace to Bruce Crossing who complain about wolves every time we talk.

Do I love wolves, absolutely not. Would I hammer one if it strolled by while I had a weapon in my hand, not unless it endangered me or my property (I would not hesitate to kill a wolf if it attacked a pet while I was present, and would have no problem standing before the man for doing so if I was caught). Do I shed a tear when one gets popped and tossed in a ditch, absolutely not. But when a guy breaks a game law as blatent as shooting a collared animal, leaving it that close to his blind and returning to hunt the same blind....... He is asking for trouble and the LEOs are just doing their job. I have no problem with SSS management of MI wolves, however, it does not help us, as sportsmen get to the point where we are allowed to manage them ourselves with legal hunting and trapping methods.


----------



## KWB (Mar 1, 2009)

This thread should be printed as an example of WHY you should stay in school! It amazes me how ignorant many of the comments on here are. I certainly hope some of you are not reproducing!

Those Wolves were here long before us and co-existed with the Deer just fine...

How is it that the Deer population was just fine before all the Wolves were killed off years and years ago?

Instead of whining about the Wolves, maybe fighting for better habitat protection would be a more educated thing to do. Thus helping out not only the Deer population, but also helping out every other species in the UP...

If a Wolf threatens a person, obviously you need to protect yourself, but shooting it because Billy Joe Jim Bob says they are hurting the Deer population is plain ignorance...


----------



## tjstebb (Jun 5, 2006)

KWB said:


> This thread should be printed as an example of WHY you should stay in school! It amazes me how ignorant many of the comments on here are. I certainly hope some of you are not reproducing!


 

Thanks for your input! :lol::lol:


I must have caught your post before you edited it....cause what i have in quotes is all that was there to begin with

tjstebb


----------



## KWB (Mar 1, 2009)

Let me ask this question and hopefully someone will answer honestly...

Has there REALLY been a state or federal biologist state on the record that the Wolf population has reached a point they NEED to be hunted "not could be hunted" as a few people have stated? If so, I apologize for my comments "well to some of you, some comments were ignorant regardless", but kind of find it hard to believe that one would go on the record saying this and it not becoming a reality, but you never know these days....

Also, has anyone taken into account what the effects on the Wolf population would be IF they did take them off the endangered species list? Like them or not, they have a right to be here and do fill a role in the ecosystem. They need to be protected to a LOGICAL standpoint.

My guess is this, many people are looking at the situation from ONE point of view, their hunting success or lack there of, but are failing to look at it from a bigger picture and see that there is a whole lot more effecting the Deer population. For example, the Deer population has declined considerably in areas here in Michigan which have NO Wolves, so maybe, just maybe there is a trend here that is not being recognized due to people being too narrow minded and just looking for the easiest thing to blame...

Just my thoughts, I am not against a hunting season on Wolves if it is truly necessary or will not effect the species in a negative manner, I just see many comments here having zero logic behind them which while it doesn't surprise me, is sad to say the least...


----------



## duckhunter382 (Feb 13, 2005)

Spartan88 said:


> I have seen one, pretty cool, I'd apply for a wolf tag.


 I agree I have seen two wolves in my life and I would love to make a rug mount.


----------



## tjstebb (Jun 5, 2006)

duckhunter382 said:


> I agree I have seen two wolves in my life and I would love to make a rug mount.


 
You want to shoot one just go to Canada....We see several just about every year and tags are over the counter for non residents and not too expensive either,

tjstebb


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

KWB said:


> Let me ask this question and hopefully someone will answer honestly...
> 
> Has there REALLY been a state or federal biologist state on the record that the Wolf population has reached a point they NEED to be hunted "not could be hunted" as a few people have stated? If so, I apologize for my comments "well to some of you, some comments were ignorant regardless", but kind of find it hard to believe that one would go on the record saying this and it not becoming a reality, but you never know these days....
> 
> ...


You need to keep in mind that the Endangered Species Act was the second worst piece of legislation ever put forward. The Volstead Act being the worst (in my opinion). Based solely on emotions, it's leaves a tough row-to-hoe for the scientific approach to wildlife management that we embrace today.

The Volstead act was repealed. The ESA should be as well.


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

Mickey Finn said:


> You need to keep in mind that the Endangered Species Act was the second worst piece of legislation ever put forward. The Volstead Act being the worst (in my opinion). Based solely on emotions, it's leaves a tough row-to-hoe for the scientific approach to wildlife management that we embrace today.
> 
> The Volstead act was repealed. The ESA should be as well.



Those are the poorest statements in this entire thread...care to elaborate?


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

TrekJeff said:


> Those are the poorest statements in this entire thread...care to elaborate?


Actually. They are the best statements. What part don't you get?


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

Mickey Finn said:


> Actually. They are the best statements. What part don't you get?


Tell us your facts that support your "best statements".


----------



## KWB (Mar 1, 2009)

Mickey Finn said:


> You need to keep in mind that the Endangered Species Act was the second worst piece of legislation ever put forward. The Volstead Act being the worst (in my opinion). Based solely on emotions, it's leaves a tough row-to-hoe for the scientific approach to wildlife management that we embrace today.
> 
> The Volstead act was repealed. The ESA should be as well.


Please, explain why you feel this way if you wouldn't mind, very interested to hear why you feel this way...


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Russ Mason is on record saying the state needs to manage the wolf population.



> Michigan wolves do not need federal protection and havent for the last decade, according to Department of Natural Resource Wildlife Division Chief Russ Mason.
> Our wolf management plan is entirely adequate, said Mason. The reason the wolves do not come off the (Endangered Species) list is a matter of money.


For the full story here's the link.
http://www.sooeveningnews.com/news/x1560340792/Time-to-delist-the-wolf


----------



## KWB (Mar 1, 2009)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Russ Mason is on record saying the state needs to manage the wolf population.
> 
> 
> For the full story here's the link.
> http://www.sooeveningnews.com/news/x1560340792/Time-to-delist-the-wolf


 
All I can say is WOW...


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

KWB said:


> Please, explain why you feel this way if you wouldn't mind, very interested to hear why you feel this way...


Sure, I assume your asking about the ESA.

It was inacted in 1973. (It has since been revised nearly a dozen times).You may think this bit was well intentioned. Nobody would argue that the USAs conservation efforts had been haphazard at best. Hunters and anglers did what they could for the species they cared about. But pollution was still entering the enviroment unchecked in many cases. Non-game species went unattended. Trees were harvested at will. Along come the enviromentalist. Well intentioned do-gooders perhaps. But they did sound the alarm. 

Alot of things were going on at this time. Many of which had the federal government reeling.
The Vietnam war was grinding to a dismal halt. We had stopped bombing cambodia, OPEC was forming. There was the Arab oil embargo. We all know what President Nixon was upto. In short they needed a victory. Something that they could wave around and show us that they were still the power of well, whatever. They had this knew agency the EPA. Who doesn't want to protect the enviroment. The clean air act had been well excepted. Outside of industry that is. Industry of course were the bad guys in this issue. 

CITES had been adopted. (This is the international law that prevents you from importing that leopard hide you shoot in South Africa where they are considered like our coyote's.)

Bingo! An act to protect endangered species here in the US. How will we know if they are endangered? We'll figure that out later. How will we decide which species or sub species is in marginal existence? How will we manage an enviroment so it doesn't favor one species at the detriment of another. Or another dozen? How will we determine if a species is marginal or just going threw a natural population fluxuation? Truth be told. None of the science and research tools necesary for theses tasks. Even existed on December 28 1973.

But this knee-jerk legislation was passed. It is with us still today and we who understand that conservation (wise use) not protectionism. Is the way forward. have to contend with it. 

In short, it is a bloated, unresposive legislative albatross. Which allows activist judges and whats become of the well intentioned do-gooders. to corrupt and obstruct conservation efforts.

Which is why I compare it with the Volstead act. It has inadvertantly caused well mannered law abiding citizens to loose faith in the legal system. As Mr. Mason, a fellow who knows what is what, said. The reason the wolves do not come off the (Endangered Species) list is a matter of money. 

I think states should be able to put together their own individual management plans and opt out of the ESA.

I honestly thought most outdoorsmen and women. felt the same.

ATB


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

So in other words you have no facts regarding the ESA to support your statement.

The closest thing to a fact you mentioned was CITES, and that was just that it existed.

Care to try again, as it stands right now your point is mute.

Here are a few more acronyms for you to use, just incase you are running short...NRA, CWA, CAA, and NCA.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

TrekJeff said:


> So in other words you have no facts regarding the ESA to support your statement.
> 
> The closest thing to a fact you mentioned was CITES, and that was just that it existed.
> 
> ...


Your a silly little Prcik arn't you.


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

Mickey Finn said:


> Your a silly little Prcik arn't you.



Is it silly to call you out and ask what your sources are? Politicians do the same thing, run with an idea with out any facts and when questioned, they throw in a vast amount of other abstract ideas, yet never address the point.

So back to the original question, what are your facts to support your statement?


----------

