|
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
In Sgt. xxxx’s deposition on 8-22-06, xxxx made several statements of fact that were untrue. These statements have caused damage to my reputation and to the Judicial Process of my Civil Lawsuit 05-xxxx.
(Sgt. xxxx Deposition)Page 17, lines 6-25 / Page 18, lines 1-25 / Page 19, lines 1-8 Q Now, in this report that you signed it says in there, quote, “Sergeant xxxx stated he had made contact with Bob xxxx, owner of xxxx’s Taxidermy, and had gotten permission from xxxx to take hair samples from the hide.” Is that true? A Yes Q And by saying that you had made contact, does that mean that you contacted him? A Right. I went to xxxx’s Taxidermy. Q This was the day of the frozen hide? A Right. Q And on that day did you ask him if you could take samples? A I did. Q And what did Mr. xxxx say? A He consented to that. Q And was this Mr. xxxx deer hide? A It was Mr. Ingersoll’s deer hide. It was in Mr. xxxx possession. Q Now, is there any reason why you didn’t contact Mr. Ingersoll to ask if you could— A Yes Q --take samples A Yes Q And why not? A Because in criminal investigations, if I would have done that, it’s a possibility the deer hide would disappear before a sample could be taken. Q But you could get a warrant? A Could . If— Q Did you? A If the –if the deer hide could be produced. But no—no. I don’t think a warrant was needed. Q A warrant was not needed? A No. I got consent from a taxidermist to— Q But not the owner of the hide? A No Q And is it your understanding as a law officer that consent from a person who is in possession of the hide is as good as consent of the owner? A What—could you explain what you mena by “as good as” Q Well, you don’t think that that’s a 4th Amendment search and seizure violation, without a warrant? A No, I don’t believe it is. Q And why is it that you believe that that was a proper seizure? Did you consult anyone? A Well, because I received consent from the taxidermist. We do taxidermist inspections regularly. And it was a small hair sample—small hide hair sample that was taken. Q So it wasn’t just a hair sample? A No; no. A sliver of hide was taken with hair. Q And who instructed whoever took this sample to take a hide sample as well as hair sample? A That would have been me. Page 21, lines 7-8 Q So you haven’t done anything like this in the past? A With an albino deer? Page 21, lines 20-24 Q Does an albino have characteristics different from other white deer that would be –identify the deer right off the bat as albino? A I’ve heard about pink eyes, hoofs that are—are—don’t have brown pigment in it. Talking to the scientist, talking Page 22, lines 7-10 Q Do you have any knowledge as to whether this deer had pink eyes or dind’t have pink eyes? A I went from the photographs, and the eyes did not appear to be pink. Page 28, lines 16-19 Q Did you at any point give any of this information to the Cheboygan County prosecutor? A Yes. I didn’t personally, but officer xxxx submitted the report to the Cheboygan County prosecutor. Page 39, lines 11-14 Q Well ,no, I’m just wondering, did you—have you had requests or dispatches that have come in from another source that says “We’d like you to investigate this deer:? A For this albino deer Page 43, lines 11-24 Q So whether it was biologically an albino was not really as issue for the DNR in terms of its law enforcement obligations; correct? A We had to go on what the law said. Q Right; right. But it could be an albino – what I’m getting at is— A It could be an albino with---with— Q --this could be an albino deer, but if it had enough brown markings of whatever source other than manmade sources, -- A It would be legal Q --it would be legal A --animal to shoot Q --to shoot, and there would be no prosecution; correct? A Exactly Page 47, lines 18-23 Q Didn’t matter to you whether it was an albino deer? A It didn’t matter. What mattered is, if it had brown on it, if that was naturally occurring. Q And once it had enough brown on it that was not manmade source, your job was done? A Correct. |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
Honorable xxxxxxxx in the Cheboygan County civil court based his ruling on the testimony of the DNR officials.
(Court Transcript)Page 45, lines 12-25 / page 46, lines 1-18 Previously these motions for summary disposition when they were brought I was of the opinion that an albino deer was illegal to shoot and therefore looking at things in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the letters could be interpreted as accusing the plaintiff of having committed a crime which is per se libel or slander. The pleadings now before me really, I guess, have educated me to the individuals in charge of enforcement that an albino deer— what is technically an albino deer can be a legaltarget and legal kill if it has a certain amount of that brown coloration or stain on it, and there is nothing to refute that that’s the law. I mean, that is what the DNR testified to. There is nothing on the opposite side that indicates that’s wrong. That an albino deer regardless of amount of staining or quantity of staining or however it comes about is always an illegal kill. That’s not the case on this record. It appears that it can be a legal kill. Therefore, what’s different today than it was before discovery had concluded was to indicate somebody has shot an albino deer is not to accuse them of a crime. As the DNR has testified to, there are instances where shooting an albino deer can be a legal act. With that not being a part of the equation anymore, there is no per se slander or libel and it’s down to actual malice and when I read these letters I don’t find that to be the case together with the attachments to the pleadings on these motions for summary disposition, so I’m going to grant the motions for summary disposition. On 12-01-06 Ingersoll’s Civil case 05-xxxx was dismissed with prejudice. This was due directly to DNR officer’s Lt. xxxx and Sgt. xxxx incorrect testimony. On 8-23-07 Ingersoll contacted Lt. xxxx and asked if he could meet with him for lunch or something and try and put their issues at hand behind them. Stating that if xxxx and xxxx would write a letter to the Judge xxxx to straighten out the incorrect statements they made, they could possibly come to terms. Lt. xxxx declined! (Phone Records) Ingersoll then contacted Attorney General Mike Cox office. He received an e-mail with a Meeting Request form attached. On 8-27-07 Ingersoll drafted up a retraction letter to Sgt. xxxx and mailed it. On 8-31-07 Sgt. xxxx received his retraction letter with all the incorrect statements listed. (Mail Receipt) On 8-28-07 Ingersoll drafted up a retraction letter to Lt. xxxx and mailed it. On 9-1-07 Lt. xxxx received his retraction letter with all the incorrect statements listed. (Mail Receipt) On 8-31-07 I received a message on phone cell phone from Barbara Schmidt from the Attorney Generals Office, leaving me her telephone number to return her call. At 11:34 a.m. on 8-31-07 Ingersoll returned Barbara call and gave information to her regarding Constitutional rights, obstruction of Justice, subpoena incident, prosecutor’s office incident and Lt. xxxx name for contact. He informed Barbara about the false statements made by DNR officials and how his civil case was dismissed based on their false testimony. She replied that due to next week being a holiday, many people would be off and she will contact me the following week. Barbara was planning on talking with the Chief of the DNR and possibly Rebecca Humphries. (Phone Records) On 9-18-07 I called Barbara Schmidt from the Attorney Generals Office regarding the DNR. She suggested that I get in contact with DNR director Rebecca Humphries the Director of the DNR. (Phone Records) AT 2:14 on 9-20-07 Ingersoll contacted State Representative Gary McDowell’s office. He spoke with Dan and explained the situation; Dan stated he would look into it and call back. (Phone Records) AT 2:42 Dan called back and informed Ingersoll to contact DNR Director Rebecca Humphries, if that does not work, please call back. (Phone Records) On 9-20-07 at 4:15 Ingersoll contacted the DNR Director Rebecca Humphries office in Lansing. Ingersoll informed them, that the Attorney General Office and State Representative Gary McDowell’s office requested him to contact this office regarding the DNR issues. Their response was that I should talk with the Chief of Law enforcement. Ingersoll told them how he called Chief Allan Marble before and was told to contact Captain Kurt Bacon in regards to the conduct of the DNR officers. Doing so, only to Lt. xxxx call him back 10 minutes later. They replied that Chief Allan Marble was no longer with the department and the new Chief of Law Enforcement was Rodney Stokes and to make sure I gave the new chief the information regarding Chief Allan Marble. On 9-21-07 Ingersoll called Chief Rodney Stokes office and talked with Taunia Sadler and briefed her on the situation. She checked the chiefs schedule and informed Ingersoll to try to call back tomorrow between 9:00-12:00. She asked which officers were involved; I listed Lt. xxxx, Sgt. xxxx and Officer xxxx. I was informed that Lt. xxxx was no longer with the department, due to his retirement. Ingersoll was able to schedule a meeting for 10-16-07 in Lansing with Chief Rodney Stokes. Ingersoll attended the meeting with Mr. Stokes and discussed the activities of the officers. It was a promising meeting, with acknowledgement of wrong doing on the DNR’s part. Chief Stokes was going to check into a few things and get back with Ingersoll.( DNR meeting) •Why Sgt. xxxx and Lt. xxxx stated under oath that Ingersoll had shot an albino deer? •Why Sgt. xxxx stated under oath that Officer xxxx submitted my Incident Report to the Cheboygan County Prosecutor? •Why Lt. xxxx , Sgt. xxxx and Officer xxxx did not have a warrant before they confiscated and damaged his property? After not hearing from Chief Stokes for almost two months Ingersoll e-mailed the Mr. Stokes on 12-6-07. On 12-13-07 Ingersoll received an e-mail response from Chief Rodney Stokes. With answers to all the questions in his e-mail sent on 12-06-07. This will bring up several items in dispute, which will be covered later in this document. On 12-26-07 Ingersoll e-mailed Mr. Stokes again with several factual items, to help him sort the information out. Not getting a response from Chief Rodney Stokes Ingersoll followed up with another e-mail stating his intentions on 1-07-08. Ingersoll Informed Mr. Stokes that he was referred to the Directors Office from the Attorney General Mike Cox office and was trying to settle his problems as he was instructed. On 1-08-07 Chief of Law Enforcement Rodney Stokes e-mailed Ingersoll that he had nothing else to offer. |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
Please help a fellow hunter in need and stop these people before they strike again!
Please contact your State Represenative and Senator in your district and help get this issue investagated! Locate State Rep- http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp Locate Senator - http://www.senate.michigan.gov/ Tell them to contact Peter Manning at the Attorney Generals Office. 517-373-7540 Reference the Ingersoll DNR Issues. We can make a difference! |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
Any thoughts folks?
|
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
They are the iron ball and you are the rubber hammer.In a battle the longer it is ,the more it shows on the rubber hammer not the ball. I'm sorry but thats how it is .I could have told you how it would trun out after the first post .I have been there,you will not even get an apology for all the time and money they wasted of yours.They think everyone should just bend over and spell R U N without a qustioning them. [/align] |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
John, what those people have done to you makesme want to vomit!![:'(]Plain and simple, they've got a problemadmitting they went about thingsin an unprofessional/illegal manner. What really pisses me off is that they have their superiors covering for them!![>:] They are scumbags as far as I'm concerned. This kind of crap is all too common in this country these days, and it's part of the reason other countries view us the way they do. If I was an attorney, I'd help you out for FREE.
Also, the guy on this forum who questioned your ability to identify the deer's eye color is a realsmacked ass. The brown on that bucks head is enough to make it a piebald.The bottom line is, THEY OWE YOU A PUBLICAPOLOGY, and should make good on any financial hardships you incurred. Good luck my friend. That's a beautiful trophy that you earned.;) |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
4-28-08 - I finally talked with Peter Manning from the Attorney Generals Office. I was told he will be forwarding the information to the Criminal Division and calling me back with a contact persons name!
Environment, Natural Resource and Agriculture G. Mennen Williams Building – Sixth Floor 525 West Ottawa, P.O. Box 30755, Lansing 48909 Community Pressure helps! Please make a call! Division Chief, S. Peter Manning ........................................ 517-373-7540 |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
May 8, 2008 - NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION [align=left]I. FOR INFORMATION ONLY – NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ACTION IN JUNE [/align] [align=left]A. Deer Management Units (DMUs) Open or Closed to Antlerless Deer Licenses, Removal of Protection for Albino and All-White Deer Wildlife Conservation Order, Amendment No. 8 of 2008 [/align]FOR INFORMATION ONLY.............................................. ...........................1-9 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...8_232198_7.pdf |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
That's a partial win.
|
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
Yes, this was on my list of things to do. But this law does not effect my situation and does not apply to me...............
|
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
Until the Michigan Attorney General Charges these Officers and the truth comes out! I wil not rest...........................
Justice, A citizen has come forward with an extremely documented complaint. An investigation into the conduct of these officers! Violation of my Constitutional Rights Perjury Obstruction of Justice[/align] |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
I wish the best of luck to you. They tought you made a mistake and wanted to hang you for it.What they did wasn't a mistake but no one wants to hang them for it. Everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions ,even those behind a badge or in a robe. [/align] |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LANSING JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM GOVERNOR REBECCA A. HUMPHRIES DIRECTOR SUBMITTED: April 14, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Subject: Deer Management Units (DMUs) Open or Closed to Antlerless Deer Licenses Removal of Protection for Albino and All-White Deer Wildlife Conservation Order Amendment No. 8 of 2008 FOR INFORMATION ONLY Authority: The Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, authorizes the Director and the Commission to issue orders to manage wild animals in this state. Discussion and Background: This amendment removes the protection for albino and all-white deer, and establishes the open/closed status for antlerless deer license sales for each DMU. It is burdensome to the hunter to determine if a deer is an albino deer or meets the definition of an all-white deer while afield. There is no compelling scientific reason to protect these deer. Escaped exotic deer that are all-white have been protected by this regulation. These free-ranging exotic deer should not be protected. This amendment would allow albino deer and all-white deer to be taken during the deer season. Recommendation: This order is being submitted for information and consideration. This item appeared on the Department’s April 28, 2008 calendar and may be eligible for approval on June 5, 2008. Douglas A. Reeves Acting Chief Ronald A. Olson Chief Wildlife Division Parks and Recreation Division Lynne M. Boyd Chief Patricia A. Spitzley Chief Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division Office of Legal Services Rodney Stokes, Acting Chief Law Enforcement Division Arminda S. Koch Dennis Fedewa Resource Management Deputy Chief Deputy I have analyzed and discussed these recommendations with staff and concur as to matters over which the Natural Resources Commission has authority. Rebecca A. Humphries - Director WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ORDER Amendment No. 8 of 2008 Under the authority of sections 40107 and 40113a, Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, as amended, being sections 324.40107 and 324.40113a of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the Natural Resources Commission and the Director of the Department of Natural Resources orders that, effective June 6, 2008, the following sections of the Wildlife Conservation Order shall read as follows: 3.100 Taking of deer, prohibited firearms, "bait" and "baiting" defined, conditions for baiting established in certain area; unlawful acts. Sec. 3.100. (1) A person shall not use a rimfire firearm .22 caliber or smaller for the taking of deer. (2) A person shall not pursue, capture, shoot, kill, chase, follow, harass, or harm a deer while the deer is swimming in a pond, lake, stream, or other body of water. Approved as to matters over which the Natural Resources Commission has authority. *Keith J. Charters, Chairman Natural Resources Commission Approved as to matters over which the Director has authority. *Rebecca A. Humphries Director http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...8_232172_7.pdf |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 "> |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
|
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
On Thursday, May 08, 2008 the documentation regarding corruption of DNR Officers was sent to the Criminal Division of the Attorney Generals Office in Lansing......
Section 750.422 THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 750.422 Perjury committed in courts. Sec. 422. Perjury committed in courts—Any person who, being lawfully required to depose the truth in any proceeding in a court of justice, shall commit perjury shall be guilty of a felony, punishable, if such perjury was committed on the trial of an indictment for a capital crime, by imprisonment in the state prison for life, or any term of years, and if committed in any other case, by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 15 years. History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.422 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jfxbqdvvp4bwpb45n42e0o45))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-422 Section 750.423 THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 750.423 Definition. Sec. 423. Definition—Any person authorized by any statute of this state to take an oath, or any person of whom an oath shall be required by law, who shall wilfully swear falsely, in regard to any matter or thing, respecting which such oath is authorized or required, shall be guilty of perjury, a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 15 years. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jfxbqdvvp4bwpb45n42e0o45))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-423 [/align] |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
9 & 10 News - Thursday, May 8, 2008
[/align] Hook & Hunting Segment [/align] [/align] Dan Boss - ([email protected]) [/align] [/align] Now, Albino and All White deer have long been protected from hunting in Michigan, but this week the State Natural Resources Commission reviewed a proposal to make it legal to hunt Albino and All White deer. The DNR Director made the proposal after reviewing the case of a local hunter who legally shot a nearly all white piebald deer in 2004, the Director says their is no compelling scientific reason to protect Albino's because they represent a mutation that is not desirable in the deer herd. Action on that proposal is expectedto take placeatnext monthsmeeting. [/align] |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
AGENDA – NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2008 PAGE 2
REGULAR MEETING OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION I. FOR INFORMATION ONLY – NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ACTION IN JULY A. Early Season Waterfowl Hunting Regulations Wildlife Conservation Order, Amendment No. 11 of 2008 FOR INFORMATION ONLY.............................................. ...........................1-5 B. Antlerless Deer License Quotas Wildlife Conservation Order, Amendment No. 12 of 2008 FOR INFORMATION ONLY.............................................. .........................6-12 II. NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ACTION A. Approval of Minutes – May 8, 2008 Natural Resources Commission Meeting B. Deer Management Units (DMUs) Open or Closed to Antlerless Deer Licenses Removal of Protection for Albino and All-White Deer Wildlife Conservation Order, Amendment No. 8 of 2008......13-20 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...8_234944_7.pdf |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
Michigan Outdoor News - May 23, 2008 / page 19
 |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
In This Issue
Hunter's persistence may result in law change regarding albino deer The $180,000 Legal Battle... ------------------------------------------------------------ by By Richard P. Smith June 01, 2008 The Michigan law that was supposed to protect albino whitetails from hunters for almost 20 years is in the process of being changed thanks to John Ingersoll from Indian River. That's little consolation for Ingersoll, who is on the brink of bankruptcy and could lose his house over his three year battle to clear his name after shooting a mostly white deer during December of 2004 that fits the legal description of a piebald. He was accused of shooting an albino and using paint or shoe polish to discolor some of its hair, so it could be passed off as a piebald. Piebalds are partially white whitetails that have always been legal for hunters to shoot in Michigan. One or more piebalds are normally taken by hunters in the state each year. They have more white than normal, but the amount of white hair they have on their body varies. The hair on piebalds is normally a mix of brown and white. The 5-pointer happened to be harvested in the district of the late state Senator Joseph Mack from Ironwood. He received some complaints from constituents about the deer being shot and acted on them. Mack pressured the state Natural Resources Commission (NRC), which had the authority to set such regulations at the time, into protecting deer that are totally white. The legislator introduced legislation that would have protected albinos if the commission didn't do so. Since Michigan law defines albinos as being all white, deer that have any brown on them qualify as piebalds. Ingersoll shot the mostly white deer that resulted in the controversy he found himself in on December 19, 2004 in Emmet County. That was the last day of the muzzleloader deer season. He was hunting from a blind with a .45 caliber Thompson/Center muzzleloader loaded with 150 grains of powder and a 185 grain saboted bullet. The rifle was mounted with a 3X-9X Leupold scope and sighted in at 200 yards. According to the DNR there is no compelling scientific reason to protect these deer as albinism represents a mutation that is not desirable in a deer herd. John said he saw a number of does and then the white buck came into the hayfield where the does were from some pines and started chasing the does around. This was the first time he saw that particular deer as well as any whitetail with so much white on it. The experienced hunter looked the deer over carefully with binoculars. Besides having 8-point antlers, Ingersoll could see brown on top of the buck's head and on the inside of each hind leg where the tarsal glands are located. Since the buck was not totally white, he assumed it was a piebald and legal to shoot. The buck was 218 yards away when John shot the deer, making a clean kill. He was rightfully happy and excited about taking such a unique whitetail. Several days later, Ingersoll brought the deer to the Department of Natural Resources office in Indian River to verify that it was indeed a legal animal. Employees from both wildlife and law enforcement divisions inspected the buck and agreed with John that it fit the legal description of a piebald. John posed with the deer for photos that appeared in a local newspaper and dropped the animal off with a taxidermist to have a full mount done. After the deer was skinned, Ingersoll took the white buck's head to the DNR office in Gaylord to have it aged and tested for TB. Some Indian River residents had been feeding and photographing an albino buck for four years. When they saw the photo of John with the deer he shot, they assumed it was the same whitetail and they insisted the DNR investigate. They accused Ingersoll of coloring the deer's hair brown. So a conservation officer went to the taxidermist who had the hide of the deer Ingersoll shot and took some small samples of the hide with brown hair attached, to have them tested for any manmade coloring agent. When John found out about this, he got angry. He felt his permission or a warrant should have been obtained first. It was his position that the samples were obtained illegally. Consequently, he took the hide from the taxidermist who had it because he felt the taxidermist should have consulted him before giving the officer permission. Since John felt he had all of the verification he needed that the white buck was a legal deer when he took it to the Indian River DNR office, he felt justified to react the way he did. His behavior in objecting to the taking of evidence, however, was interpreted as a sign of guilt by the investigating officers. Examination of the samples taken from John's deer confirmed that they had not been tampered with, verifying, once again, that the deer was legal under Michigan law. The buck Ingersoll shot was also aged at 2 1/2 years old, meaning it couldn't be the albino that local people had been feeding for four years. And, in fact, the albino buck John was suspected of shooting was later seen alive. But Ingersoll's reputation had been tarnished. The people who had been feeding the albino buck wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, accusing him of shooting the deer. As a result, John said people stopped coming to his boat repair business. He and his family were also harassed in public because of the false accusation. In an attempt to clear his name, John filed a civil suit against the people who he felt slandered him. He wanted DNR officers to admit in court that he shot a piebald whitetail and not an albino. That didn't happen and the suit was dismissed. At least one DNR employee testified that the deer John shot was an albino, but it was still legal for him to shoot because of the spots of brown coloration. The officer testified that there are some situations in which an albino whitetail can be legal to shoot and the buck Ingersoll shot represents one of those situations. The brown coloration on the buck's head and hocks was staining caused by the glands in those locations. Whitetail bucks have forehead glands that are active during the rut and secretions from those glands stain the hair. Adult bucks also rub their heads on trees and brush that can result in additional staining. Hair on the hind legs is also stained from the tarsal glands. The hair on the hind legs of adult albino does can become discolored from their tarsal glands, too, which makes the law protecting albinos in Michigan unenforceable. The law was a bad one to begin with because it was based on political pressure and emotion rather than science. It's about time the law is eliminated. John felt that some pigmentation of the white buck's eyes helped verify it was a piebald, but that's not true. Albinism is a mutation that results from the lack of color in skin and hair. Deer with this condition simply don't produce melanin, which is responsible for normal pigment or coloration. Without color, the skin is pink and hair white. Pink eyes are normally associated with true albinos, too, and many of them do have eyes that look pink, but that isn't true in all cases. Most of the albino whitetails I've seen have had some coloration in the irises of their eyes such as a gray or light blue. Their pupils are pink, however, which isn't often easy to tell unless viewed under direct sunlight, with a spotlight or a camera flash. An article by Carl J. Witkop, Jr. about albinism in the October 1975 issue of Natural History Magazine mentions that some albinos have an enzyme called tyrosinase, which allows the formation of slight amounts of pigment, with the eyes being one location where this pigmentation appears. Most of the albino whitetails I've seen and photographed have been tyrosinase positive deer. Those with pink eyes are tyrosinase negative. Pink-eyed albinos are supposed to have poorer vision than those that have some pigmentation in their eyes. The buck Ingersoll shot had a pink nose and hooves, which are typical of albinos, too. True piebald whitetails normally have black noses and hooves. There are exceptions though, like the piebald buck Michigan bowhunter Chad Bleeker arrowed on October 1, 2003. It had a pink nose and hooves, indicating it had some albino genetics. Some people refer to piebalds as partial albinos for that reason. In a letter to John, DNR Director Rebecca Humphries summed up her analysis of the situation this way: "Your situation has helped reveal to the Department that the rules and regulations relating to albino deer need to be changed. I have asked our Wildlife Division to prepare an order for the Natural Resources Commission that would make the harvest of an albino deer legal in the State of Michigan. Truly, in cases whether it is initially difficult to determine whether a deer is legal or not is burdensome to the hunter. Moreover, there is no compelling scientific reason to protect these deer as albinism represents a mutation that is not desirable in a deer herd. "You have obviously gone to great effort to resolve this matter, and I understand the time and resources you have committed to that resolution. The DNR has also committed a great deal of its time and resources to resolving this matter as well. This letter represents the final determination of the Department, and, from this point forward, we consider the matter closed. I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention." Another reason the protection for albino deer is being removed by the DNR is the regulation also protects escaped exotic deer that are all white in color. The change will allow hunters to shoot exotic deer that have escaped from enclosures to remove them from the population. John has spent $180,000 in legal fees for depositions and an attorney to represent him in this matter. The late television show host Fred Trost was Ingersoll's lawyer. Anyone who is grateful for John's efforts and would like to help him out of the financial hole he's in can send contributions to him at 7170 Tuscarora Circle, Indian River, MI 49749. Thanks for visiting Woods-N-Water News http://www.woods-n-waternews.com/Articles-i-2008-06-01-179043.112113_Hunters_persistence_may_result_in_la w_change_regarding_albino_deer.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LfJICnLfCk |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
Hunter who shot piebald may inspire change
BY SHERI McWHIRTER [email protected] INDIAN RIVER -- John Ingersoll had no idea that shooting a rare "piebald" deer would lead to years of battles with state wildlife officials and some of his neighbors. The Indian River resident's case is the catalyst for a proposed change in Michigan hunting laws that would remove protection for albino and other genetically mutated all-white deer. The Natural Resources Commission will consider the proposal Thursday in Lansing. The state's about-face is good policy, Ingersoll believes, but it doesn't go far enough, and doesn't account for the thousands of dollars he lost in a lawsuit he hoped would clear his name. "I feel the reason they changed the law is to throw me a bone and hope that I'll go away," he said. In December 2004, Ingersoll shot a predominantly white deer while hunting in Emmet County and took it to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources field office in Indian River. His eight-point buck had brown eyes and patches of brown fur, by definition a piebald deer, not an albino or all-white deer, a fact later confirmed by DNR scientists. Not everyone would kill a white deer, Ingersoll acknowledged, but he believed he had the legal right to do so and he wanted the trophy. A full body mount of the animal resides at an in-law's house. News of Ingersoll's kill quickly spread, and the loss of the unusual creature distressed some local folks. Some wrote letters to newspapers to complain about him killing an albino deer. And in Michigan it's a crime to kill an albino deer -- unless state wildlife officials agree to the law change this week. The allegations that he'd killed a protected deer prompted Ingersoll to file a defamation lawsuit in Cheboygan County against seven area residents who publicly made that accusation. Two DNR officials -- retired Lt. Jeff Gaither and Sgt. Greg Drogowski -- testified in lawsuit depositions that Ingersoll killed an albino, after all. Ingersoll's lawsuit then was thrown out of court, and he was ordered to pay the defendants' legal costs. He since spent thousands more trying to prove he didn't commit a crime. Ingersoll wants DNR officials charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and violating his constitutional rights, he said. Drogowski said there's a biological explanation for the situation and why the state didn't charge Ingersoll with a crime for killing a protected albino deer. The deer was albino at one point, proven by earlier photographs that showed the deer with the same antler configuration. During the rut, the animal stained portions of its fur brown by rubbing trees and urinating on its legs, making it piebald when Ingersoll shot it, Drogowski said. "We believe that was an albino or an all-white deer, but because it was stained brown, it made it legal for him to shoot," he said. Ingersoll is appealing the dismissal of his defamation lawsuit, said his Traverse City attorney, Jonathan Moothart. http://www.record-eagle.com/local/lo...156094059.html |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
To top it all off we have to wonder what the law makers are going to change for next year. I have tried to contact my local game warden at www.gamewarden.us and have had success. I was also able to get opinions of several other officers. Check it out www.gamewarden.us
|
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
NRC shores up deer hunting rules Albino hunting ban dropped
Posted: Friday, June 06, 2008 at 6:25 a.m. LANSING — Michigan wildlife officials are dropping a rule that bans hunting of albino deer, a move aimed at eliminating confusion over which animals are off limits. The Natural Resource Commission also approved a proposal to disallow hunters with a combination license from taking a buck with fewer than three antler points on one side with the regular tag and with fewer than four antler points on one side with the restricted tag. These changes were approved yesterday by the commission. http://www.wluctv6.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=143594 |
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
On Friday, July 11, 2008 I received notice that documentation regarding DNR Officers misconduct and perjury was received at the U.S. Federal Attorneys Office.
|
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
Any comments?
|
RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
"DNR Retired Lt. Jeffery Gaither, Sgt. Greg Drogowski and Officer Michael Feagan were investigated by the State of Michigan Attorney Generals Criminal Division, the Michigan State Police, the Otsego County Prosecutor, Cheboygan County Prosecutor and the U.S. Federal Attorneys Office for perjury, obstruction of justice and violation of ones Constitutional Rights. The DNR Officers were exonerated from any wrongdoing by all agencies."
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:08 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.
![Posted: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. UPPER PENINSULA -- The Department of Natural Resources is considering a rule change that would allow hunters to harvest albino deer. The animals have been off-limits for decades, but this week the Natural Resources Commission will consider changing the regulation. Based on hunter reports, it's been estimated that about one in 30,000 deer are albinos. State biologists believe there's no scientific reason to protect albino deer. Some residents, though, consider them a wonder of nature. A new law would also make it easier to control all exotic white deer species that have escaped from game farms in the Lower Peninsula. "By removing the protection on albino and all white deer, we're also relieving the protection on those exotic escaped species, and they can be taken as legal harvest," explains Ann Wilson of the DNR. www.wluctv6.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=130942]http://www.wluctv6.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=130942](http://www.wluctv6.com/uploadedImages/wluc/News/Stories/albino.jpg){kind=link}