Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Poacher Sentenced..

Excerpt...

"..Superior Court Judge John Suddock ordered that for the next 10 years McConnell is not allowed to own a computer or be on the Internet. He's not allowed to practice taxidermy or own guns. And if he wants to leave the road system south of Anchorage, he's got to have the permission of his probation officer..."

Full Story:

http://www.adn.com/front/story/8356279p-8251770c.html


Nice to finally see a violator get a sentence with some teeth in it..Of course once the appeals go through I bet the sentence get's de-fanged...

Great judge! Would get my vote anytime. 1Minute

These undercover stings are not the way to catch poachers. Animals must die to catch a few "poachers". If the undercovers did not entice with money, a lot of those same animals would still be there.
Better yet, officers should be in the field.

The judge, saying the defendant is a hunting addict, makes me think this judge, is an anti-hunter?

I can see the 6 months and fines, but I think a complete ban on firearms for 10 years is a bit excessive. You don't have to own a gun to hunt.

The big thing to me though - is saying he's not allowed to own a computer or access the internet for 10 years ??? The world basically revolves around the internet today, and moreso every year. I really have trouble understanding the judge's justification for revoking the defendant's access to computers for 10 years.

I also have a personal issue with the judge extropolating and saying "is he expected to believe this one snapshot is all there is."

"That one snapshot" - is what's on trial. Not 20 years of past history. Especially when the guy's partner-in-crime got 17 days and a slap on the wrist. ... but the judge can't be expected to review any other precidents outside the case, only the case in question ... but he can still go on unproven and untried assumptions of 20 years of history outside the case at hand.

It's mighty gray. I think it's pretty extreme, especially the 10 years without computers.

Ben589: In my state (Oregon), sheep hunting is a mandated once in a lifetime experience, and I can not afford the 10+ grand to do the Alaska thing. At my present age, the odds are not good that I will ever go. Had I been the judge it would have been a lifetime ban on hunting regardless of implement used, and I would have seized every piece of their property (guns, rigs, optics, etc) used in execution of the crime. I couldn't care less about his internet access. Some folks occasionally have a hunting accident and perhaps should not experience the full brunt of the law (i.e. drill 2 animals in a line). It sounds as though these guys planned and committed significant resources and time to their endeavors. First degree type stuff in my book. Not just a slight indescretion especially given their history. While history was not on trial, it does suggest a pattern in this person's behavior that needs a bit of modification. I feel the fines etc were a bit light. Hit them and hit them hard. 1Minute

I don't mind the fines or jail time. (I'm not sure I agree that one person should get 17 days while another gets 6 months + 10 years of the other stuff), but I have no problem with that.

I just don't see the right or logic behind banning him from *all* computers or internet access for 10 years for a hunting crime. The guy got into a truck to drive off with the animals - why not ban him from all driving for 10 years , or magazine articles / ads ??

I see them as being just about as relavant. Maybe it's just because I'm a computer programmer and make my living and livelihood with computers, but I just don't see computer access as having any bearing on poaching. To me, banning him from driving would make more sense.

Banning him from the internet and computers is kind of stupid though, the judge needed to hit him where it hurts and that is banning him from ever hunting in Alaska again.

If he was conducting a majority of his illegal activities (i.e. selling gall bladder, horns, etc.) via the internet, or if he was using the internet to communicate with other poachers or to keep up to date on the demand/price for his "wares" than the keyboard is just as culpable as was his rifle IMHO, they're both tools that when used improperly and illegally should be revoked.

After his sentence is served he needs to move out of state and forget about Alaska for the 10 years. I am not sure, but his not having an internet computer may have not stand in anouther state. He can own guns in anouther state unless he is a felon, so ,, he leaves alaska and he is back in the saddle again.. Unless the sentences cross state lines that is...
Max

It may be tricky to get his parole officer to let him relocate out of state though.

Especially since it's Alaska. That's a hell of a drive for parole meetings.

The judge gets my vote. A judge or attorney hears liars daily are in good positions to be judges of character. It sounds to me like the poacher was incorrigible and would probably not respond to less than the whole book being thrown at him.

i had a customer once leave me a video of his alaskan bear hunt. during the video there was a time in which several men were shooting 22's at bald Eagles and otters from the boat. I conacted the local US dept. of Wildlife and they sent an officer out. he brought equipment to the shop to copy the tape and got a statement from me w/ regards to whom i got it from.
NOTHING ever happened to the guy and he now , actually, runs a deer-turkey hunting operation in SC (Cypress Creek Hunting Lodge) and appears and hosts several nationaly seen hunting shows.

I think Alaska is part of a group of western states that, when a person gets banned for hunting in one state, it applies to the entire list of states, not just Alaska. If thats true then he won't be doing any hunting except in the south, midwest, or east coast.