BowHuntingFool

Sounds to me like he never really learned anything about hunting in those 33 years![:'(]

kshunter

He should have known better than to walk to Idaho with his both. You have the right to retrieve game, and could argue that, but once he set foot with his bow, he was hunting. He didn't say, he retrieve the bull, with his bow in hand, so I hope I can assume that correct. It's like anyone else hunting on private land, next to "No Hunting" land. If the deer is hit on your side, and you go in after it with a weapon, then you're hunting illegally. He should have known better. And if it was only 400 yards from the state line, then he could've proved that to the Warden. But for some reason elected not too, and disregard any "proof" he had. Something just doesn't add up when reading his statement. Not to mention all of the terrible shots he obviously made, hitting the neck, windpipe, "possible hits", etc. No wonder why they didn't record any of it....

Sounds to me he saw a big bull just outside of the state line, elected to shoot it, try to cover it up, and is now facing the consequences. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but geez, his statement just didn't add up.

Just my 2 cents.

Looks like justice was served, so that's that.

BareBack Jack

I don't think what he did was right,if he "did" shoot that elk in Montana,he should have went and found the game warden and showed him what had happened.Instead he admitet guilt by trying to cover it up,and also was turned in.

ButI also feel his pain about the FWP or DNRC law enforcement.It seems anymore that you are guilty until proven inocent.To me it seems the minute you put on your camo or grab your gun you asking to be prosocuted.
BBJ

121553

I don't know who the guy is and have no ideal if he's a celibrity or not. Doesn't make a dang crapola. There are 3 sides to every story,

1) my side of the story
2) your side of the story
3) what actually happened

He actually just fu@%ked up. I believe he got caught up in the moment and had tunnel vision.He shot a bull that he,... might of shot the day prior but not really sure?? I kinda have to question on why such a supposeably skilled hunter could not identify it correctly. I believe that if he had actually shot it 500 yrds on montana and it drifted into idiaho that there would be actual evidence of that takeing place on the montana side. Wheres the arrow? What I can not believe is he didn't take the aurthorities to where he said he shot it at in montana. And another thing that anybody knows out west,... when you bag an elk/deer/bear, or any other big game, it had better have a tag in it.DUGH!!!!!!!! The 3 guys had a time together while going to towne to get an otc tag, and collaberate about putting a story together. They knew after it was shot that they had screwed up royally. And just one more thing, I myself would never, ever admit being guilty, if I wasn't.What a abouthis son that was charged?? If he was NOT hunting, why was he charged for no license, and he didn't dispute it? There are just too many inconsistansies (holes) in the story as I read it. As I said, I don't know who this guy is, but I'm sure he's doing some back peddling now.

Bobby

ShatoDavis

Here's my take on this story, for what its worth. If he was accessing Montana from a road in Idaho, then he had to be carrying his bow through the woods of Idaho during hunting season without being in possesion of a legal license. So hes guilty of hunting illegally before he ever shot the elk. Maybe, it happens all the time and no one thinks anything about it but I'm pretty sure that its illegal. He didn't tag the bull immediately so he's guilty of that crime. He went to town to buy a tag for an animal that was already dead. That is not only immorral it is illegal in most states and I'm sure idaho is one. If he shot the elk in Montana there would be evidence of such. He admitted his quilt. He tried to cover it up, and now is crying that he was mistreated. I say that he is an idiot and I'm ashamed that he is called a hunter.He tainted everything good that he has done in the last couple of decades with his actions on that day.

buck knife

Very good point Shato.

It looks like he only spent 30 of the 180 days in jail and he said he only paid $3000 in fines. I thought I read that the fines where over $11,000. guess he didn't get the max. good thing it wasn't in Colorado or the Samson law would've probalby been implemented.

salty

The sad thing is he killed that animal illegally for the pure purpose of profit and infomericals most likely for his game calls. I am glad he was caught and I hope they catch the rest of the no good poachers out there

HillClimber

Bobby (121553) makes a good point re sides of the story. There was a very entertaining thread over on bowsite.com on this topic. A poster identifying himself as the Idaho officer posted his version of the story. I wont repeat it here,someone else copied it before the post was deleted and pasted it to one of this site's bowhunting forums. You can find it here: http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=1320970

Anyone can claim to be anyone online, so I can't say if those posts really came from Mr. Berry or the Idaho officer. The two versions of the event are about as far apart as you can get. Mr. Berry says he didn't tag it, the officer says not only that, he didn't even gut it and appeared to have no intention of doing so.

However,Mr Berry did walk into court and pled guilty. There was a case in Los Angeles were a woman pled guilty and then walked outside and told reporters she wasn't and just pled that way because she felt she had no other choice, no chance of winning. Tried to spin it in her favor. The judge got wind of this and threw out her plea, made her come back to court and say yes, she had in fact committed the crime. Work the media however, but don't claim you lied to the judge.

Not having access to all of the evidence, witness statements, etc., I can't pretend to be a jury member. I do have faith that the justice system gets it right more often than not, though its not perfect. If you accept Mr. Berry's side of the story, maybe he had a smallchance of convincing a jury that he had shot the elk in Montana. If you accept the officer's side of the story, Mr. Berry could've come out a lot worse.

Rebel Hog

Now he is called Dingle Berry!

CAPT BRAD

Seems to be a lotta "Holier Than Thou" attatude's around here. I don't believe for one minute that he decided to start poaching all of a sudden. A man with 33 yrs expierience and an unblemished record I would at least give the benifit of the doubt. Maybe he F^%&$%up and tried to cover his A$$. After dealing with Some of the people I've dealt with in the past30 yrs I cant say I blame him too much.
I'm not trying to cover for the guy' I don't know him from Adam. But I don't think an apple spoils with 33 yrs expierience. Besides he said in his note he would pay the price reguardless. Sounds like a man ofhis wordto me.

Just my .02