jci63

Letter Regarding Albino Law!

http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/47b8a593_135a9/bc/My+Documents/Albino+Law---1.pdf?bfGoA9HB9TkurnQU

jci63

The real story on the possible albino deer law.

Gaylord DNR Rally 4-5-08

I was able to talk with State Representatives, Tom Casperson and Kevin Elsenheimer. Kevin agreed to review my documentation and see what can do, to help. Tom Casperson agreed to contact Attorney General Mike Cox and see what he could do to get things investigated.

jci63

As a member of SCI I have contacted them and asked them to join in this battle with the bureaucratic green suited DNR.

The SCI Mission Statement
Safari Club International is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and in promoting wildlife conservation worldwide.

That's why SCI Members are active in more than 100 countries, and why you'll cherish your involvement with SCI. SCI fights tirelessly to protect the hunting heritage enjoyed by 15 million Americans and 45 million families around the globe.

Together, we help every sportsman and sportswoman understand how and why SCI is truly First for Hunters. By joining SCI, you join the ranks of hunters spanning more than 100 countries who share the same passion for our hunting heritage and wildlife conservation as you.

I know that people read this thread, do you belong to a club or organization that can help?

Please, get involved and lets get justice, nothing more, just what we have a constitutional right too!

DTC

All I have to say is congrats on a deer of a lifetime.

jci63

Well, I received a little help regarding my situation, from a new source.[/align][/align]The Up North Journal - http://www.upnorthjournal.com/[/align]

jci63

">

jci63

">

">

">

jci63

2-22-08 - Citizen Assistance Request

I have been trying to resolve several issues with the Michigan Department of Natural Recourses.

These issues include violating my Constitutional Rights, damage to my property (due to DNR actions), intentional false testimony by DNR Law Enforcement Officers and Obstruction of Justice.

I have tried to maneuver through the proper channels to resolve this, to no prevail.

I contacted the officer’s supervisor- Law Enforcement Chief Alan Marble - referred to Captain Kurt Bacon - no resolution

I contacted DNR Lt. and Sgt. directly trying to resolve the issues. They were not interested!

I next contact the Attorney General Mike Cox office and received a meeting request form. Due to all documents having to be attached to this form, it took several months to gather the information.

I drafted up two retraction letters and sent them to both Lt. and Sgt. - No answer

I contacted the Attorney Generals Office - I received a call back obtaining information - referred to the Director of MDNR

Contacted my State Representative Gary McDowell - he stated I must try to resolve things with MDNR Director first.

Contacted the Director of the MDNR - was referred to the new Chief of Law Enforcement Rodney Stokes.

Had a meeting in Lansing with Rodney Stokes- He admitted the MDNR had made several mistakes! I was instructed to go home and get back to him with a reasonable solution. I complied and sent in my request to Chief Rodney Stokes. I received a reply he can't help me.

Finished the paperwork for my Meeting (349 pages) with the Attorney General Office and mailed it certified mail. Received conformation - no answer

Sent a copy of the Documented facts to Director Rebecca Humphries (349 pages) certified mail. Received conformation- no answer



2-28-08 - Response Citizen Assistance Request

Dear Mr. Ingersoll,

Thank you for contacting the Governor's Office to express your concerns about the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

To ensure that your concerns are given immediate attention, I have taken the liberty of forwarding your information to Director Rebecca Humphries' office of the DNR for their careful review and consideration.

I have asked them to look into your specific situation and to report their findings directly to you.

Again, thank you for contacting our office on this important subject.

Respectfully,

Monica
Issue Specialist
Constituent Services Division
Office of Governor Jennifer M. Granholm

3-06-08

NRC MEETING in Lansing

I made the following statements!

I have some serious issues with some DNR officers a Sergeant and Lieutenant.

I feel these DNR officers falsely testified under oath which directly affected the judicial process of a civil lawsuit filed in Cheboygan County by myself.

I have several pages of documentation to back up my statements. I feel these officers

• Violated my constitutional rights

• Perjured themselves under oath

• Obstructed justice

While trying to get this situation investigated, I have been shuffled thru a messy bureaucratic process.

This process included

• Talking with the officers supervisor

• Talking with the Chief of Law Enforcement

• Talking with the Attorney Generals office

• Being referred to the DNR Directors office

• Then being referred to the Chief of Law Enforcement Rodney Stokes – which I did meet with and was told to go home and get back with him with reasonable demands to resolve these issues. Only to contact him at a later date to be told that there is nothing he can do for me.

• Back to the Attorney Generals Office

• Contacted my State Representative Gary McDowell

• Referred to DNR Directors office – which I sent a meeting request to along with 349 pages of documentation.

• Sent 349 pages of documentation to the Attorney Generals Office along with a meeting request form.

• Contacted Governor Granholm’s office – received correspondence back stating this was referred back to the DNR Directors Office.

• I received a call from DNR Directors Rebecca Humphries office stating I would be receiving a letter in the mail addressing my issues. WHICH I HAVE NOT RECEIVED YET!

As a citizen I feel if the tables were turned action would have been immediately.

This is my second trip to Lansing regarding this situation. 400 miles each trip! Not to mention the thousands of dollars in expenses this is costing my family and hours and hours of time spend.

How does an average citizen settle a questionable unlawful action of a DNR Officer?

Their needs to be an outside internal investigation!

It’s like your trying to pick a lock or something, trying to crack the code!

I don’t want to have to hire an Attorney and file a lawsuit of the DNR and I shouldn’t have too. I should be able to settle this matter with the DNR.............................

Humphries comments – Well you did sent us several pages of documents to review and that takes time.

My response – I sent you 28 pages of the overview of what happened and the rest of the documentation was for reference to back up my statements.

Humphries response – Well, I want to go over all the documentation in detail, which I am sure that you would want me too. I just want this panel to know that this was not a case that was prosecuted by the department.

My response – This involves me being falsely accused of a crime which was investigated. Which I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the MDNR ruining my deer hide I was getting a full body mount on!

Mary Brown comments – What is all this about.

Humphries response – I will write a letter to each one of the members of this board regarding the actions I will be taking on this situation.

Frank Wheatlake – Your concern are being handles by the Director and she has stated that she will be writing you a letter. You may not like her response in the letter, but she will write you a letter. Thank You.

While in the hallway after my 3 minute speech I was approached by the Attorney General Assistant Peter Manning in which he stated – that if I did not get a response that I was satisfied with to contact his office and they would turn it over to the criminal division of the Attorney Generals Office. But we must give the DNR Director the correct the issue first.


3-13-08 Response from DNR Director

REBECCA A. HUMPHRIES
March 13, 2008

Mr. John Ingersoll
7170 Tuscarora Circle
Indian River, Michigan 49749

Dear Mr. Ingersoll:

This letter will respond to the documents received by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on February 6, 2008. On February 28, the Governor's office forwarded your e-mail to me and asked that I respond to it on behalf of the Governor.

In both the e-mail and from the documents you have provided, I have determined that you contend the following three things: 1) your Constitutional rights were violated, 2) that DNR Law Enforcement personnel intentionally and willfully provided misleading and false testimony resulting in the dismissal of your civil action, and 3) that the DNR's role in these events damaged your reputation.

Let me establish at the beginning, that I have undertaken this review with no prejudice as to the outcome and with an open mind in an effort to provide you with a fair opinion and response to the issues you have presented.


Violation of Constitutional Rights

In your e-mail to Governor Granholm, you allege that your Constitutional rights have been violated by the DNR. In reviewing the documents pertaining to the collection of the hair and hide sample, I assume you believe that those materials were collected illegally as a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Q: "Well, don't you think that that's a 4th amendment search and seizure violation, without a warrant?"

Acting Law Enforcement Chief, Rodney Stokes, addresses this question in his December 13, 2007 e-mail, to which I refer in part:

"It was Sgt's decision to obtain a small hide sample from the taxidermist shop. Since it was at a location where no expectation of privacy was expected or requested, and it was a business that is regulated under DNR laws where we do routine inspections, the DNR did not believe a search warrant was necessary."

While I do not personally have a working knowledge of the various investigative protocols in this case, the actions taken by these officers do not seem unreasonable. The collection of the hide and hair samples proved to be instrumental in determining that the deer you harvested had naturally occurring brown spots. This was critical in concluding that this deer could legally be harvested.

I must disagree that these actions were inappropriate, considering how they supported your assertion that this was a legal deer.

Obstruction of Justice and intentionally providing False Testimony

In the written documents you provided, and in addition to your testimony at the March 6, 2008

Natural Resources Commission meeting, you accuse two current and one former Law Enforcement officers of obstruction of justice and perjury.

Based upon the very serious nature of these allegations, I paid particular attention to the testimony given by the officers in question. From the materials provided, which did not include the full text of each deposition, I do not agree that these officers intentionally provided false testimony. My review of their testimony simply did not reveal this intentional and coordinated effort to mislead.

However, if you believe that these accusations can be proven, I would recommend that you notify local law enforcement or your county prosecutor's office. These officers should have an opportunity to formally respond to these allegations.

Restoration of Your Reputation

Our officers investigated the question of whether or not your deer was a legally killed deer or an illegally killed deer. That investigation determined that it was a legally killed deer. You were not criminally charged, and you were not issued a citation. The fact that you were not charged or ticketed should serve as evidence enough that you legally killed that deer.

As a matter of course, the Department does not publish otherwise legal behavior in the newspaper. It is the duty of these officers to investigate complaints, which in this case they did, and based upon that investigation no further inquiries into the matter were made. Again, you were not charged with a crime, nor were you issued a ticket.

If others, as a result of a media report, believed otherwise, that is unfortunate. If you feel that you have been or are unfairly portrayed in the media, perhaps writing a letter to the editor clarifying that you were never charged nor ticketed would help put the matter to rest. As I indicated in the previous paragraph, the fact that you were never charged with a crime or issued a citation is testimony enough to the fact that the DNR believes this was a legally killed deer.



Conclusion

Your situation has helped reveal to the Department that the rules and regulations relating to albino deer need to be changed. Over 20 years ago, the protections for albino deer were written in statute. As the environmental and natural resources laws were codified in the early 1990s, that law was converted to a regulation in the Wildlife Conservation Order.

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 the matter to my attention.

Rebecca A. Humphries
Director
517-373-2329



cc:
Governor Jennifer Granholm

Representative Gary McDowell

Natural Resources Commission

Mr. Peter Manning, Assistant Attorney General

Ms. Mindy Koch, Resource Management Deputy, DNR

Mr. Daniel Eichinger, Acting Legislative Liaison, DNR

Mr. Rodney Stokes, DNR


I apologize for not including this information in my last request for help. I forgot that you probably get an extreme about of request per week.

You first contact me by e-mail which informed me that your office referred this to the DNR Director. I did get a response from the Director and the Issues are still not settled or addressed.

The DNR position is "This letter represents the final determination of the Department and, from this point forward, we consider the matter closed."

"While in the hallway after my 3 minute speech I was approached by the Attorney General Assistant Peter Manning in which he stated – that if I did not get a response that I was satisfied with to contact his office and they would turn it over to the criminal division of the Attorney Generals Office. But we must give the DNR Director the correct the issue first. "

I would like to set up a meeting with Governor Granholm to discuss and resolve these issues.

John Ingersoll








Citizen Assistance Request
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with Governor Granholm.
Your message has been submitted.











Thank you for contacting Governor Granholm’s Constituent Services Office for assistance. Please fill out the following form completely and include all the information, details and case numbers that will be relevant in reviewing your concern. Once the form is successfully transmitted, Constituent Services will begin working with the corresponding state agency to assist you.

jci63

December 06, 2007

Rodney Stokes
530 W. Allegan
Lansing, MI 48933
517-335-3427


Re: 10-16-07 Meeting
[/b]


Dear Mr. Stokes:

On October 16, 2007 we had met in your office to discuss the conduct of several DNR officers, Lieutenant , Sergeant and Officer ????. In which it was determined and agreed upon, that the DNR had made several mistakes. At this point we agreed that you would investigate three things,

1) Why Sergeant and Lieutenant stated under oath that I had shot an albino deer?

2) Why Sergeant Drogowski stated under oath that officer?? submitted my Incident Report to the Cheboygan County Prosecutor?

3) Why Lieutenant , Sergeant and Officer?? did not have a warrant before they confiscated and damaged my property?

I was told that you would talk to Lieutenant Thomas Courchaine on Tuesday October 23, 2007 and then contact me. [/align][/align]You also informed me to e-mail you with my demands to settle this matter and to be reasonable. After not hearing from you for [/align]approximately 2 weeks, I contacted your office on November 6, 2007 at 8:34 a.m. and talked with Taunia Sadler and was [/align]transferred to your voice mail. I left a message for you to contact me and have not heard from you. [/align][/align] I am following up this morning with this e-mail to see where we things are at? I have contacted my attorney regarding the [/align]possibility of being able to use an affidavit to sent to the Appeals Court and the Lower Court to correct the inaccuracies yourofficers, but no legal avenue is available to do so. [/align][/align] If you could contact me with a detailed answer of what the Department of Natural Resources would be willing to do to settle this matter or to discuss, it would be greatly appreciated. [/align][/align][/align][/align] Sincerely [/align][/align][/align] John Ingersoll[/align][/b]



MDNR Chief of Law Enforcement


Dear Mr. Ingersoll:

In response to your e-mail dated December 6, 2007 regarding our October 16, 2007 meeting, I offer the following responses to your questions.

1) Why did Sergeant and Lt. state under oath that you (John Ingersoll) had shot an albino deer?

RESPONSE:
Through Sgt's discussion(s) with the lab, he was under the impression there was no conclusive test to call an animal albino or not, i.e.: DNR testing. Therefore, Sgt. called the deer an albino, which he believed it was, based on photographs of the same buck several months before (entirely white). The eyes not being pink was brought up, however, he learned that an albino animal's eyes apparently lose the pink coloration shortly after death (your buck was not seen by any DNR personnel until several days after death).

From a law enforcement perspective, it didn't matter if we called it an "albino deer", or "all white deer", since the law states it is unlawful to take "an albino, or all white deer."

2) Why did Sergeant state under oath that CO submitted your incident report to the Cheboygan County prosecutor?
RESPONSE:

CO was instructed to take the incident report to the Cheboygan County PAO and review it with them, advising the prosecutor we were not interested in prosecuting due to the fact the deer had brown stained hair, which made it not fall under the "all white deer" definition in the law.

CO reported to Sgt. that he took the report to the PAO and discussed it with them, the prosecutor deciding that no arrest warrant would be issued.

CO advised Sgt. he took the incident report directly to Assistant Prosecutor Bill Keogh. The prosecutor reviewed the report, they discussed the incident, and the prosecutor advised it was not something he would issue an arrest warrant on. Since this is what the DNR anticipated, no warrant request was completed, and that was the end of contact with the prosecutor's office on the incident.

3) Why didn't Lt. , Sgt. , and CO have a warrant before they confiscated and damaged your property?

RESPONSE:

It was Sgt.s decision to obtain a small hide sample from the taxidermist shop. Since it was at a location where no expectation of privacy was expected or requested, and it was a business that is regulated under DNR laws where we do routine inspections, the DNR did not believe a search warrant was necessary. The hide/hair samples were taken to determine if any artificial chemical substances were used to stain the hair, as was accused by several citizens. The lab tests were only able to determine if hydro carbons were present, with the results being negative for hydro carbons.

The taxidermist did advise Sgt. the holes created by taking the hide samples would be of no consequence in regards to mounting the deer later, due to their small size. He advised they commonly dealt with much larger holes and tears in a hide, without any detrimental affects to the finished mount.
Mr. Ingersoll, I believe the above responses address all of the outstanding issues we have discussed. I do not know anything else I or our conservation officers can do to resolve your concerns/issues.

Thank you.


Rodney Stokes
Acting Chief, Law Enforcement Div.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Mason Building -- 4th Floor P.O. Box 30031 Lansing, Mi. 48909
(517) 335-3427
[email protected]
"Volunteers are NOT paid, Not because they are worthless, But because they are priceless"

jci63

12-26-07

Dear Mr. Stokes:
In response to your e-mail on 12-13-07, I offer the following facts.

In your response underparagraph 1, you mention that –
"Through Sgt.s discussion(s) with the lab, he was under the impression there was no conclusive test to call an animal albino or not, i.e.: DNR testing." [/b][/b]
There were two reports done by the DNR regarding the deer 1) Necropsy Record, 2) Toxicology Report. As stated in the DNRNecropsy Record and the Toxicology Reportthe testing was done, due to the animal being reported earlier in the summer and fall with a pure white coat. Sgt. mistakenly, determined that this automatically made the deer an albino.

DNR Toxicology Report[/b]
[/b]
“The deer is a forensic case. The animal was reportedly seen earlier in the summer and fall with a pure white coat. When harvested, the animal had brown on the head and tarsal area. Because albino deer are protected by law, there is question as to whether or not the stain on the fur was due to the hunter painting or staining the hair with some type of petroleum product. More history is on the submittal form.”

DNR Necropsy Report[/b]
“The deer was seen earlier in the summer and fall with an apparent all white coat. When the animal was harvested during the 2004 deer season, it had brown colorization on the head and tarsal gland area. The eyes were pigmented (which by definition eliminates this as being an albino animal), but there was a question regarding the staining of the fur in the two area as to whether they were stained naturally or by the hunter through painting or staining the areas with some type of petroleum product.”

Diagnosis: skin and hair samples are Negative for hydrocarbons and man-made chemicals.

In paragraph 1 yougo on to state that Sgt.based his decision on pictures of the same buck.

"Therefore, Sgt. called the deer an albino, which he believed it was based on photographs of the same buck several months before (entirely white)." [/b]
[/b][/b]
I would like to point out, that the picture thatSgt. was viewing was that of a deer that residents in the area were feeding for four years.

This is documented through their letter, published on December 30, 2004 on page 5of the Straitsland Resorter.

Who killed our friend for a trophy? Please be advised that on Monday Dec. 20, 2004, someone from Indian River shot and killed the neighborhood's pet Albino deer. We have been lovingly feeding this pretty animal for four years.

My deer was aged through the DNR (TB Tag #258627) to be 2.5 years old. Making it impossible to be the same deer!

Your deer, TB Tag #258627, submitted on 12/28/04 was aged at the Rose Lake Lab as a 2.5 year old male[/b].

In paragraph 1 also mention about the deer’s eyes being brought up in Sgt. discussions with the lab.

“The eyes not being pink was brought up, however, he learned that an albino animal’s eyes apparently lose the pink colorization shortly after death (your buck was not seen by any DNR personnel until several days after death).[/b]
[/b]
This statement does not line up with the wording on the DNR Necropsy Record by Pathologist Cooley. Clearly stating, the deer’s eyes were pigmented (which by definition eliminates this as being an albino animal)

DNR Necropsy Report[/b]
“The deer was seen earlier in the summer and fall with an apparent all white coat. When the animal was harvested during the 2004 deer season, it had brown colorization on the head and tarsal gland area. The eyes were pigmented (which by definition eliminates this as being an albino animal), [/b]but there was a question regarding the staining of the fur in the two area as to whether they were stained naturally or by the hunter through painting or staining the areas with some type of petroleum product.”
Diagnosis: skin and hair samples are Negative for hydrocarbons and man-made chemicals.

It is a fact that I did not shoot an albino deer,whetheryou determine it by the Legal Description or the Genetic description of an albino deer.

MDNR 3.100(2)
(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to take or possess, at any time, an albino deer, being a deer with all white or colorless hair, or a deer with a coat of all white or colorless hair similar to an albino deer. Piebald, or partially white deer, may be taken under the provisions of this order.

Legal Description – Albino deer; a deer with all white or colorless hair

Genetic Description – Albino deer; "True albinism is due to lack of pigment. A true albino deer will have all white hair, grayish hoofs, and pink eyes.The eyes appear pink because, in the absence of pigment, the blood can be seen coursing through the blood vessels." (Page 182, The Deer of North America by Leonard Lee Rue III)

It is clearly a misunderstanding by Lieutenant and Sergeant to even suggest that I shot an albino deer, when the legal and genetic description matches a piebald deer to the letter of the law and genetically.

MDNR 3.100(2)[/b]
[/b](2) It shall be unlawful for a person to take or possess, at any time, an albino deer, being a deer with all white or colorless hair, or a deer with a coat of all white or colorless hair similar to an albino deer. Piebald, or partially white deer[/b], may be taken under the provisions of this order.
[/b]
Legal Description – Piebald deer; partially white deer[/b]
[/b]
Genetic Description – Piebald deer; “Partially white[/b], or piebald, deer are the color mutation hunters are most likely to see, being far more common that melanistic, albino or all white deer. Piebalds tend to be highly variable in color patterns, ranging from a few white spots[/b] to mostly white with a trace of brown[/b]. In albinos, none of the cells can produce melanin. In piebald’s, at least some cells can produce pigment. This causes a spotting of coat colors, with some areas appearing normal and others white.” (Page 142, 143 John Ozoga’s Whitetail Intrigue, Scientific Insights for White-tailed Deer Hunters) [/b]

In paragraph 2 you mention how Officer??? took my Incident report directly to Assistant Prosecutor Bill Keogh.

CO ???was instructed to take the incident report to the Cheboygan County PAO and review it with them, advising the prosecutor we were not interested in prosecuting due to the fact the deer had brown stained hair, which made it not fall under the "all white deer" definition in the law. CO??? reported to Sgt. ???? that he took the report to the PAO and discussed it with them, the prosecutor deciding that no arrest warrant would be issued.

CO ???? advised Sgt. he took the incident report directly to Assistant Prosecutor Bill Keogh. The prosecutor reviewed the report, they discussed the incident, and the prosecutor advised it was not something he would issue an arrest warrant on.[/b] Since this is what the DNR anticipated, no warrant request was completed, and that was the end of contact with the prosecutor's office on the incident.

This statement first of all makes no sense. Why would the DNR go to the Prosecutor with a case that they did not even want to prosecute? With an Incident Report that stated that I killed a legal Piebald! I would also like to point out the following factual information.

CHEBOYGAN COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE[/b]
[/b]
1st contact – Inquired if my case was reviewed by the Cheboygan County Prosecutors office, the secretary entered my name in to the computer and said NO. She would double check with the Prosecutor, just to make sure, and call me. I left both my home phone and cell phone numbers.

2nd contact – Never received a call, so I followed up on information regarding if my case was reviewed by the Cheboygan Prosecutors office. I was told, “No the case never came thru this office!” If I needed more information, I should talk with officer???? about this.

On 11-8-06 I received an answer to my F.O.I.A. request I sent in on10-20-06. In this information was the Daily Reports of both DNR officers???? and Sgt.

After Reviewing all Officer???? DAILY REPORTS supplied from F.O.I.A. request dated 11-08-06, from the dates 12-19-04 thru 2-28-05. None of these REPORTS showed Officer ???? going to see, or traveling to the Cheboygan County Assistant Prosecutor office.[/b]
[/b]
In paragraph 3 it talks about how the DNR did not believe it needed a search warrant.

It was Sgt's decision to obtain a small hide sample from the taxidermist shop. Since it was at a location where no expectation of privacy was expected or requested, and it was a business that is regulated under DNR laws where we do routine inspections, the DNR did not believe a search warrant was necessary.[/b] The hide/hair samples were taken to determine if any artificial chemical substances were used to stain the hair, as was accused by several citizens. The lab tests were only able to determine if hydro carbons were present, with the results being negative for hydro carbons. The taxidermist did advise Sgt. the holes created by taking the hide samples would be of no consequence in regards to mounting the deer later, due to their small size. He advised they commonly dealt with much larger holes and tears in a hide, without any detrimental affects to the finished mount.

Although it is correct that the DNR regulates Michigan Taxidermist businesses and is able to inspect said Taxidermist specimens at anytime. The law does not provide an avenue to confiscate ones property with out a warrant. Which the DNR did not have! It is also a severe problem that the deer was thawed out and refrozen, causing damage to my hide that was non repairable. This term is called slippage and is defined as hair falling out of the hide!

The following factual documentation will back up my statements.

Records and Inspection
The following specific information is required for each animal or part thereof, which is held or processed by a taxidermist.
1. Each specimen must be identified by the taxidermist with a tag supplied by the Michigan DNR (PR9418). As an acceptable alternative, the specimen may be identified by unique tattoo, band or seal number if the DNR tag is properly completed, on file at the taxidermy location and contains the unique tattoo, band or seal number identifying the specimen.
2. Each DNR tag shall include the following:
a. Name, address and telephone number of owner
b. Date when specimen was left with taxidermist
c. Species of specimen
d. How specimen was obtained
e. Hunting license number, captive breeder number, driver license number or other special permit number authorizing possession of specimen
f. Origin of specimen
g. Disposal of specimen and date
h. If used, unique tattoo, band, or seal number on specimen.
i. Name of person leaving the specimen
j. Name and license number of the taxidermist
3. A person issued a taxidermy permit shall keep a copy of the identification tag (PR9418) for each specimen disposed of for one year after disposal of any specimen.
This record and all specimens in possession of the taxidermist shall be available for inspection[/b] at any reasonable time of day by the Director, the Director's designee or any conservation officer[/b].
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/IC9161_149446_7.pdf[/b]
[/b]
[/b]
I am aware that Lt. has retired, officer???? was mostly following orders and Sgt. is the person whom initiated most of the questionable activities. It has also been brought to my attention that Sgt. told the original taxidermist to destroy the documentation of my job.

Deposition Page 22, lines 10-23[/b]
[/b]
Q Okay. But you're sure, though, that if someone comes picks up a job that you can throw away the paperwork and it's not required?
A Absolutely. Because I --
Q Now, is this something --
A -- I asked -- I did ask if I should keep any of this.
Q Asked who?
A I asked the sergeant in charge there, [/b]I
believe it is -- or
Q And when did you ask him?
A When it was picked up. I said, "Do I need to keep any of this?" And he said, "No," I don't have the job.

This activity is not what the guidelines state for a taxidermist.

Records and Inspection
The following specific information is required for each animal or part thereof, which is held or processed by a taxidermist.
1. Each specimen must be identified by the taxidermist with a tag supplied by the Michigan DNR (PR9418). As an acceptable alternative, the specimen may be identified by unique tattoo, band or seal number if the DNR tag is properly completed, on file at the taxidermy location and contains the unique tattoo, band or seal number identifying the specimen.
2. Each DNR tag shall include the following:
a. Name, address and telephone number of owner
b. Date when specimen was left with taxidermist
c. Species of specimen
d. How specimen was obtained
e. Hunting license number, captive breeder number, driver license number or other special permit number authorizing possession of specimen
f. Origin of specimen
g. Disposal of specimen and date
h. If used, unique tattoo, band, or seal number on specimen.
i. Name of person leaving the specimen
j. Name and license number of the taxidermist
3. A person issued a taxidermy permit shall keep a copy of the identification tag (PR9418) for each specimen disposed of for one year after disposal of any specimen.[/b]
This record and all specimens in possession of the taxidermist shall be available for inspection at any reasonable time of day by the Director, the Director's designee or any conservation officer.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/IC9161_149446_7.pdf[/b]

It has been stated in several of the Depositions that the DNR was willing to publish the results of it’s testing in the Straitsland Resorter.

Deposition 7-27-07[/b]
Pg 10, lines 14-19[/b]
The DNR officer was there. He came in; Mr. ????. I didn’t know him, I didn’t know his name. And I proceeded to ask him what he was going to do with the testing as a result of asking for samples, as Mr.???? indicated, if he was going to report to the Straitsland Resorter his findings of testing so the community would know, and settle this issue.[/b]
[/b]
Deposition 7-27-06[/b]
Pg 17, lines 7-8[/b]
Our feelings was hurt. And then the DNR said that they would take samples of the deer and put it in the Resorter[/b]

As of today in the community it is still questionable if I (John Ingersoll) shot an illegal albino deer or a piebald deer as posted online in our local Petoskey News Review.

Some readers will recall the controversy over another white buck that was shot in the area a few years ago. The great debate was over whether or not the deer was a rare and protected albino or a not-so-rare and not protected piebald.[/b] Some other may recall that a pair of white fawns was seen in the same area in years past.

http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles...outdoors98.txt

I have put an exhausting amount of time trying to clear my name and reputation in our small community. I have spent many hours of time trying to straighten this situation out.

1) Talking with Sgt. – to no avail (several times) sent retraction letter
2) Talking with Lt. – to no avail (several times) sent retraction letter
3) Talking to Chief Alan Marble – referred to Captain Kurt Bacon
4) Left message for Captain Kurt Bacon – Lt. called back
5) Called Attorney General Office – received meeting request form
6) Received call from Barbara Schmidt – Suggested contacting DNR director RebeccaHumphries office directly.
7) Called State Representative Gary McDowell – talked with Dan, explained situation, he stated he would look into it and call back (2:14 pm 9-20-07) (2:47 pm 9-20-07) received call from Dan stating I should follow up on the possible contacting of the DNR director first. If I have any problems, please call back.
8) Contacted Rebecca Humphries office and ask to speak to the director, was referred to Rodney Stokes, Acting Chief of Law Enforcement
9) Contacted Rodney Stokes – Informed him of situation and meet with Rodney to discuss / e-mailed on follow-up questions / waiting for resolution.

[/b]
If you could please do the following we can put these questionable actions of the DNR to rest.[/b]

1) An Affidavit by Sgt. and Officer ???? stating in explicated detail that I John Ingersoll shot a piebald deer by the description of the law and the genetic make up of the animal and in no way was the deer genetically or legally an albino deer.

2) A official letter from Rodney Stokes stating the DNR’s position regarding the Piebald deer I shot, describing why it came to it determination that the deer was an piebald.

3) A public apology by the DNR and mostly Sgt. and Officer???? in the form of an article to the Straitsland Resorter and the Petoskey News Review. Explaining in explicated detail that the deer I shot was a piebald deer and in no way genetically or legally an albino deer. Advising the community that the investigation was due to pictures of a different deer that was entirely white and not the same deer shot by Ingersoll.

4) An internal investigation into the conduct of Sgt. [/align]