No he didn't.
He paid $6.00 for the winning Raffle chance. No more, no less. He didn't pay any more for his winning chance than would someone's grandmother who had bought a single $6 chance.
IIRC, he purchased 312 non winning chances as well. It wouldn't matter if he had purchased 100,000 chances and had won. His 99,000 non winning chances, he shelled out north of a half million dollars for, still wouldn't give him any right what so ever to go breaking the law any more than does a loosing ticket give the purchaser of a single chance the right to break the law.
He only paid $6.00 for the winning chance and is no more entitled than had been my hypothetical purchaser a single chance to go around making up his own rules.
It must really suck to have a self worth so low that someone else can have such an impact on your life. I'd suggest you start to work on building yourself up as opposed to trying to bring another man down.
I mean how effective has your mission been thus far?
The elk was transported from GMU 334 to GMU 228 before being gutted.
A more important question is: What motivates people to defend someone who has shown a proclivity to wantonly flaunt the Game Regulations? Particularly when, in the words of his accomplice: This animal was a neighborhood pet and shooting him was likely to spark outrage. (that is a paraphrase)
For God's sake, in all honesty, can anyone lay out a scenario in which this escapade was ever going to "end well?"
Thankfully, although the vast majority of hunters who have been discussing this incident, either online or at our local Rod & Gun clubs, recognized how this act could reflect negatively on all hunters - that has not come to pass.
Sportsmen were on-board early and almost unanimous in their criticism, months before the story showed up in the Seattle Times, and irrespective of how you feel about the legacy media, when the story came to the attention of folks beyond the Kittitas valley,
sportsmen were given recognition for being outraged over the recklessness of this act.
If you go online and read the comments that have been posted, it is "trophy hunters," who participate in the Auction Tag opportunities, who people are coming down hard on. And, that really isn't fair either. Is it?
I don't participate in the Auction Tag opportunities, but I know many who do and one of those who does, I know very well. I call him a friend.
Almost all of them would never dream of pulling a stunt like this and this puts them in a spotlight that they almost all go to great lengths to avoid.
Oh, I am not saying that they don't like to bask in the glory of their hunting accomplishments when among peers, but by and large they just want to be left alone to pursue their passion of hunting and to derive a bit of pleasure from being able to take advantage of the recognition that most sportsmen willingly give to those who open their wallet up so that we all have more opportunity to pursue big game.
Hey, those of you who object across the board to us giving them this opportunity, as a big THANK YOU recognition for being the high bidder, come down off your high horse and understand that without the money these "high net worth" individuals give, we would all be poorer and knock off the bashing of those who could buy acreage for their exclusive use, or go hunting in Alaska or Africa, or whatever.
And, make absolutely no mistake about it, that is how the VAST majority of Auction winners see it. We give them something extra special as recognition for their generosity, and they recognize how blessed they are to be able and to have been to be a part in that give and take. And they act accordingly.
But the Tags are not a "free for all," they have a few, very few, restrictions attached to them and almost to a man they go out of their way to respect the limitations placed on the Tag they won.
That is what is so damnably frustrating to me. Here is a man who was caught up in scandal in 2007 or 2008, and when all the dust cleared, even though most thought he got off light, he was basically "forgiven."
When his future participation in these opportunities were being discussed, it was about 50/50 regarding him being eligible to participate.
If you don't think rehabilitating his rep was unimportant to him. It was during this time his bidding up his own high bid has been highlighted in his defense. Hey, here is a guy that had the high bid in, but bid against himself to raise the money that was donated. Yea Todd! But the question that must be answered is: was Todd genuinely interested in giving more for the sake of elk, or for the sake of rehabilitating Todd's image? Only Todd knows the answer to that question. And if Todd had kept his nose clean nobody else outside of Todd haters would have ever had reason to bring that up. But Todd did not keep his nose clean. So the question is relevant. Is it not?
I have to believe that had Todd erred on the side of caution in the future, his reputation would have been rehabilitated. But, what did Todd do? His check did not bounce, he kept up his part of the bargain in that regard. He accepted his "thank you" for his generosity, in the form of an opportunity most of us could only dream about, and then "spit in our eye" by saying "that is not enough." I want more.
Twice now Todd went beyond the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law, maybe not in this latest escapade not the letter of the law, and Todd has taken something more, something we sportsmen thought was not on the table and something the State tried to say was not included in what was given to him as recognition of a person who has been extra-generous.
I guess it boils down to whether someone who sees this opportunity as recognition for someone who goes above and beyond, or as payback for a debt owed,and Todd thinks he gets to be the arbiter of when the "debt" has been settled.
That is not acceptable to me.
Of those I referenced earlier who I know, who see these hunting opportunities as recognition of their generosity, they look at the opportunity in the light of being blessed with an opportunity most can only dream about. And do not look for ways, by hook or by crook, to "one up" the other "high net worth" individual sitting at the table they are sitting at by taking a trophy with more inches of horn.
Read about my friend here:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19910922&id=gENWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mOoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6525,5192645&hl=en
Maybe, this is what motivates me. Have you ever considered that? Here is a man who has put his money where his mouth is. He supports wild sheep anyway and he went WAY out of his way to show that the guy that buys a chance, or ten, but has three kids and a mortgage, that his contribution to wild sheep, by kicking in a few bucks to buy a chance or ten, and supports wild sheep to the best of their ability, one of you are going to be able to take advantage of a hunt of a lifetime.
And Jim, most definitely did not lack the resources to make taking a State record head almost a certainty. If he wanted to buy a State record ram, he could have. He wanted to use the opportunity to show the average sportsman how much he wants them to know he recognizes that your contributions in the aggregate are recognized by him as as valuable as his.
