Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

271 And tpw

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    271 And tpw

    Originally posted by Dry Bones View Post
    Okay, I understand why he's in deep doodoo. BUT I want to go back to the first shot. Wa sthe initial hit Legal, it may not matter, but is all the follow-up just a guy trying to dispatch a mortally wounded animal as best as he could? OR was it all in the dark? Again. Not saying he did anything right on the final end of the deer, BUT most of us have had bad hits that have either worked out or didn't. Was his final shot to put it down the only illegal part, or??


    First shot was legal
    Deer was not mortally wounded when he shot it at night 7 or 8 days later
    Here it is 3.5 days after first shot at a feeder
    Night shot was 10/7

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Comment


      #62
      So how many did he poach from the illegal stand? How many were confiscated?

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by Sparkles View Post
        First shot was legal
        Deer was not mortally wounded when he shot it at night 7 or 8 days later
        Here it is 3.5 days after first shot at a feeder
        Night shot was 10/7

        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        How was the first shot legal he shot it on land he didn't have permission to hunt?

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by TxAg View Post
          So how many did he poach from the illegal stand? How many were confiscated?
          This one and one from 2 years ago according to the court docs

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by SwineAssassiN View Post
            How was the first shot legal he shot it on land he didn't have permission to hunt?


            Good point
            Legal shooting hours


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

            Comment


              #66
              It’s good to finally hear the rest of the story with actual facts. Guy made an error in judgment, which is too bad because that buck could have been a real trophy to someone legally killing it

              Comment


                #67
                Fascinated ...


                Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by Possum9 View Post
                  Is there ever any mention on who has the horns did he get to keep them or does the state have them?
                  Highly unlikely he’d get to keep the horns.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Sparkles thank you for clarifying the facts. First shot High shoulder, again NOT mortally wounded, and on neighbors land. Definitely adds a different perspective. Almost surprised he did not catch the spine in the first shot and the buck pile up right there, if the white spot is the actual hit.
                    Again, thanks.
                    Last edited by Dry Bones; 01-25-2018, 09:36 PM. Reason: More informaiotn

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Dry Bones View Post
                      Okay, I understand why he's in deep doodoo. BUT I want to go back to the first shot. Wa sthe initial hit Legal, it may not matter, but is all the follow-up just a guy trying to dispatch a mortally wounded animal as best as he could? OR was it all in the dark? Again. Not saying he did anything right on the final end of the deer, BUT most of us have had bad hits that have either worked out or didn't. Was his final shot to put it down the only illegal part, or??
                      It was all in the dark.. not literally, well kinda lol

                      Comment


                        #71

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Part of the restitution should've been paying for a set of replicas to be made and mounted for the landowner where it was actually shot

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Originally posted by SmTx View Post
                            Part of the restitution should've been paying for a set of replicas to be made and mounted for the landowner where it was actually shot

                            Sounds like the actual owner was from Switzerland and doesn't give a **** about hunting.

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by adam_p View Post
                              This one and one from 2 years ago according to the court docs
                              So he did this twice?? If so he needs some serious counseling..

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Originally posted by Smart View Post
                                Sounds like the actual owner was from Switzerland and doesn't give a **** about hunting.
                                As small as that acreage is, that deer was on a lot of different properties.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X