Felon Gets License for Mont. Bison Hunt

[Desertdog]

Felon Gets License for Mont. Bison Hunt

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1114838


Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:40 a.m. ET
By MATT GOURAS Associated Press Writer
HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- A hunter who drew one of two dozen coveted licenses to take part in one of Montana's first bison hunts in 15 years is a convicted felon who legally can't carry a gun.

The state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks acknowledged that it has no authority to strip the man of the license. However, officials have alerted the man's probation officer.

"Obviously as a convicted felon (on probation), he cannot possess or use a firearm," said agency spokeswoman Mel Frost. "If he does use a firearm, it is not violating Fish, Wildlife and Parks rules. It is my understanding it is a parole violation."

While the state wildlife agency declined to identify the hunter on probation, a review by The Associated Press of license holders and felons under supervision determined the hunter is Daniel Marshall, 45, of Helena.

Marshall was convicted in May 2002 of writing a bad check. He does not have a listed phone number and could not be reached for comment.

The wildlife agency alerted the State Department of Corrections that Marshall had received a license to take part in the second hunt, corrections officials told the AP on Wednesday. The hunt is scheduled to begin Jan. 16.

His probation officer, Chris Cavanaugh, said Marshall believed he would no longer be on probation by then. Unlike federal law, once a felon completes his sentence on state charges in Montana, his gun rights are restored.

"Technically he hasn't violated any laws by purchasing a tag," Cavanaugh said. "He was under the belief that he would be done and that he would be able to hunt this bison."

Marshall has not paid all restitution as required, and a judge recently continued his sentence, Cavanaugh said. If he pays back all the money before the hunt, he could go to a judge and ask to be released from probation.

Marshall cannot sell the license, but state wildlife officials said if he chooses to return it, the state likely will hold a drawing to give it to another hunter.

Nearly 6,200 people, most of them Montana residents, applied for a permit. The state drew the names of 24 hunters last month. The first of two bison hunts starts next week.

State officials are carefully orchestrating the hunt, hoping to avoid the controversy that surrounded previous hunts of the animals as they leave Yellowstone National Park.

Animals in the Yellowstone bison herd carry the cattle disease brucellosis, and the state says the hunt will help ensure Montana cattle do not become infected.

 

[jefnvk]

Marshall was convicted in May 2002 of writing a bad check. He does not have a listed phone number and could not be reached for comment.

Another example of why 'felon' should not always mean 'bad people', and 'they can't be trusted with guns'.

And is bow hunting not allowed?

 

[RavenVT100]

That must've been a pretty big check.

 

[ArmedBear]

"Felony" should mean "felony."

Yes, writing a bad check is a serious crime, but it's not exactly attempted murder. I really have little problem with a bad check writer who has served his time and is being monitored by a probation officer, going hunting.

BTW what about muzzleloaders? They are not defined as firearms by Federal law, though states vary. Montana is not exactly a state that would add any restrictions to a muzzleloading hunting rifle.

 

[Sharps Shooter]

I also was wondering about muzzleloaders. I know a felon (drug convictions) who is not allowed to carry a "firearm," yet he got his elk yesterday with one of those Knight muzzleloaders. That's what he's used for hunting since he was placed on probation 2 years ago. I hear his probation is about up though and when it is, he'll be allowed to carry a firearm again.
It could be that the writer of that newspaper article was just pandering to the animal rights people who are looking for a reason to whine about that bison hunt. Chances are the writer has no concept of the differences between a "muzzleloader" and a "firearm" as defined by federal law. And to far too many people, they're both just "guns," which equals "BAD!"

 

[deanf]

So basically we have a story about nothing. They are reporting that a man has not violated any laws or regulations, and that's news?

 

[Sharps Shooter]

^ That's the way I see it.

 

[Carlos]

ya, and obviously the Dept never heard of bow hunting and just HAD to throw this guy under the bus.

So, he wrote a bad check and is ruined for life. That sucks!!!!

 

[artherd]

That must've been a pretty big check.

$500 and over is a Felony.

...

 

[LAR-15]

Antique firearm, bow, crossbow.

Take your pick.

All legal for a felon to own.

A good for hunting too.

 

[Zundfolge]

I really have little problem with a bad check writer who has served his time and is being monitored by a probation officer, going hunting.

Unless he wants to pay for the gun, ammo or license with a check

 

[Standing Wolf]

So basically we have a story about nothing. They are reporting that a man has not violated any laws or regulations, and that's news?

No, but it's an opportunity to take a cheap shot at hunters and hunting.

 

[bakert]

No, but it's an opportunity to take a cheap shot at hunters and hunting.

Standing Wolf has it right. Another cheap shot at gun owners and hunting.

 

[Sharps Shooter]

This is probably a little off the wall, but what if this felon who drew "one of two dozen coveted licenses" really has no intention of killing a bison? What if he's an animal rights person who only put in on the draw and payed for the license in order to prevent someone who would kill a bison from doing so? If he, or any one of the other people who drew a license doesn't kill a bison, will the Montana Fish and Game Department have another drawing? If someone who drew a license refuses to participate in the hunt, has that person broken any laws? Are they felonies?

 

[Ryder]

Maybe the bounced check was made out to a hitman? Just kidding, more likely it was a tax payment considering the scrutiny he's under.

 

[beerslurpy]

I think it has to be an intentional bounced check. If you write a check that bounces because you are just bad with math, it doesnt automatically make you a felon. I think I wrote a bad check or two when I was in college but was able to correct the situation without anyone calling the cops.

 

[joab]

Unlike federal law, once a felon completes his sentence on state charges in Montana, his gun rights are restored.

This is an issue that one of the gun organizations should be pushing

In Florida check kiters are prosecuted regardless of intent, if they fail to correct it by paying the merchant the face amount plus any fees or fines.

That's why I have overdraft protection on my account.
I ain't going through that again

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Buffalo Burgers

Got some buffalo burgers from the grocery store the other day--more flavorful than beef, but lacks the "stick to your ribs" satisfaction that higher-fat beef give you--and it got me wondering, if it's so hard to draw a bison tag, how can there possibly be enough meat to go around that it's available at a normal, non-gourmet grocery store (even if only occasionally)?

 

[ArmedBear]

Got some buffalo burgers from the grocery store the other day--more flavorful than beef, but lacks the "stick to your ribs" satisfaction that higher-fat beef give you--and it got me wondering, if it's so hard to draw a bison tag, how can there possibly be enough meat to go around that it's available at a normal, non-gourmet grocery store (even if only occasionally)?

Ranchers around here raise bison. The only problem is you can't herd them with horses and dogs; you need a 4x4 with extra steel tubing welded around it. Those big SOB's STILL bang up the vehicles.

Here's a ranch near San Diego: http://www.starbranch.com/

Some ranches also raise domestic cattle/bison hybrids ("beefalo").

Market hunting is illegal in the US, and has been for nearly a century, AFAIK, so I don't think anything you buy in the store was hunted.

 

[sumpnz]

My wife's step-sister's in-laws have a bison ranch in northern WA. Being that far removed from that family we haven't seen any meat from it, but I hear tell it's pretty yummy.

Market hunting is illegal in the US, and has been for nearly a century, AFAIK, so I don't think anything you buy in the store was hunted.

Yes and no. For most game animals you cannot sell any portion except perhaps the hide and antlers depending on your state. At least in AZ, you are allowed to sell the meat from a buffalo should you happen to score a tag and get one. That is partly becuase, unless you're part of the Duggar family (featured in a Discovery Channel show becuase they now have 16 kids - oldest is 17, only 2 sets of twins) you'll never be able to eat that much meat before it would go bad, even in a deep freeze. Still not "market hunting" per se, but the effect is the same.

Actually, most guys that go buffalo hunting take 3-5 other people with them, and they all pool on the expenses and work and then share the meat when they're done. A full grown bull will easily provide 4-6 typical families with all the red meat they'd be able to eat for as long as a year.

 

[ArmedBear]

sumpnz-

It's yummy, all right.

It makes sense that you could sell the meat, then, though it's probably not a major supply source for grocery stores. There are some chefs who would want the wild stuff, though.

That brings up another point. If what our oh-so-evil bad check writer wants is a year's worth of meat, he might not be looking to do the shooting at all. Maybe a whole group of people put in for a tag, and if one of them gets one, the best hunters go after a buff and they all share the expenses and the meat. That would be a completely legitimate reason for his name to be in the drawing.

 

[sumpnz]

That brings up another point. If what our oh-so-evil bad check writer wants is a year's worth of meat, he might not be looking to do the shooting at all. Maybe a whole group of people put in for a tag, and if one of them gets one, the best hunters go after a buff and they all share the expenses and the meat. That would be a completely legitimate reason for his name to be in the drawing.

Except that in most states, at least that have a lottery style draw system, the one who's name is on the tag has to be the one that actually kills the animal. In AZ, for example, you cannot transfer your tag to anyone with the exception of a handicaped/terminally ill child. You can sign the tag so that another person can transport the animal after its down, but you can't sign the transportation release before the animal is down. To do so would technically be poaching. The idea there was to prevent, say, a husband from putting his (non-hunter) wife in for the draw, and then using her tag in addition to (or in lieu of) his own.

 

[ArmedBear]

Except that in most states, at least that have a lottery style draw system, the one who's name is on the tag has to be the one that actually kills the animal. In AZ, for example, you cannot transfer your tag to anyone with the exception of a handicaped/terminally ill child. You can sign the tag so that another person can transport the animal after its down, but you can't sign the transportation release before the animal is down. To do so would technically be poaching. The idea there was to prevent, say, a husband from putting his (non-hunter) wife in for the draw, and then using her tag in addition to (or in lieu of) his own.

Here, you can't enter a tag lottery without a paid-up hunting license; I assume it's like that elsewhere, too.

So, I can't help thinking that, if he is willing to pay for a hunting license for his non-hunting wife, after somehow persuading her to go to a hunter safety course, the LEAST the state could do for a married man is let him put her name in for the tag drawing. He deserves it!

 

[sumpnz]

Here, you can't enter a tag lottery without a paid-up hunting license; I assume it's like that elsewhere, too.

Here in AZ they usually, though not this year, have given people the option on the tag application to only get a hunting license if they were successful in the draw. If you chose to only get the license if successful, then if you failed to get drawn you were not eligible for any bonus points. This year, for some strange reason that was connected to a court ruling over the cap on non-residents that can get tags they suspended the online applications and made it so that you had to already have or buy with your tag a hunting license. Not sure if they'll go back to the old way for the 2006-7 season.

So, I can't help thinking that, if he is willing to pay for a hunting license for his non-hunting wife, after somehow persuading her to go to a hunter safety course, the LEAST the state could do for a married man is let him put her name in for the tag drawing. He deserves it!

Unfortunatly the state disagrees. However, I have to agree with the state to the extent that it helps preserve the opportunities for all of us rather than having one guy getting and using the tags for his wife, mother (and in-law), teenage daughter, son's girlfriends, etc and wind up taking way more than his fair share of the deer/elk/moose/bison/etc.

 

[ArmedBear]

However, I have to agree with the state to the extent that it helps preserve the opportunities for all of us rather than having one guy getting and using the tags for his wife, mother (and in-law), teenage daughter, son's girlfriends, etc and wind up taking way more than his fair share of the deer/elk/moose/bison/etc.

Oh, I agree. What about mother-in-law but only if she lives with him? I think he deserves that.