Courtroom Results

In response to Bob B, I would like to ad that I followed this whole episode and think Mark made a forthright decision to stand his ground. I do however, think Bob B is a very good armchair quarterback. The state put in a one hen mallard so you "can" shoot a hen if you choose to. I doubt the Minnestoa regs "suggest" not shooting hen mallards. As for the one drake scaup. I haven't found anywhere in the Mississippi flyway that you can only shoot one drake scaup. To ID a drake scaup on the wing would be a challenge and to pick out that drake in a flock of birds would be tough. I don't understand your point. Are you more ethical than the average hunter? Or maybe you never made an ID mistake in the field. As for CO's. Some are better than others. And you are right, your perspective does not work for me. I'm done with my rant:<). Thank you Mark for sharing and I understand your position.

RVZ
 
Mark,

Sorry, but I have to agree with Bob B. Here's a quote from your original post:

"They are fairly certain it is a hen. They also needed to "sex the bird" to determine it was a female and not a male. Fine can be upwards of $2000 but the CO wrote it for the minimum which is $274. CO also set a court date for 11/12/2008 and said he would recommend that the Judge reduce this to around $125 (to cover court costs etc....) due to me not hiding the bird, being honest about the situation (first bird I shot, not last one by mistake), providing information on intentional illegal activity occurring the same day etc... Also said he believed me when I said I was 100% certain it was not a hen, much less a mallard duck. The issuance of a ticket will not affect my hunting rights. "

Sounds like the CO is a man of his word.

Seems to me you put yourself through two months of hell to save $2.00 and decide you'd never put yourself in that situation again.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting thread that I’ve followed and thought about since Mark first posted. First off, Mark I’m sorry for the hassles and anguish this caused you personally. Let me also note that none of us has seen a picture of the bird in question, we only have three opinions to date. Mark’s strong belief that it wasn’t a pure Mallard hen, the CO’s opinion that it sure is close enough to count as a hen Mallard and a state biologist who also claims it’s a hen Mallard as defined by the state for the purposes of regulation. From the posts we’ve seen to date, it’s apparent that Mark has friends and second there are two of camps of thought. The let’s get technical crowd who feel it should have been thrown out of court because the state didn’t have a DNA test proving the percentage of mallard blood nor does the regulation specify the percent of other (non mallard) that they would still consider as a Mallard for the purposes of regulation.



You also have the crowd that feel that a duck is what it most looks like. Here in the North East this view is strongly reinforced. Few, if any, of our black ducks are “pure”. Still they are going to count as one unless it looks more like a mallard and then it’s going to be counted as a mallard. It’s not going to be left hanging as “an other duck” because there is need to classify it as something and the purpose of classifying and regulating is to protect the population. If these crosses were non-breading “mules” okay, kill them all, but they’re not. Their offspring are going to blend back into the mallard population and keep giving us the opportunity to continue to hunt and take these wonderful creatures.

Mark, please realize that here in CT if we’re convicted, plead guilty or “no contest” to a game law violation, we lose our license to hunt, fish and trap for a year. This really forces us to think conservatively with respect to following the regulations. I’m glad your future hunting privileges won’t be impacted. I was also pleased to hear your job situation has shaped up. Hope all works out well.

Scott
 
Sounds like the CO is a man of his word.

Seems to me you put yourself through two months of hell to save $2.00 and decide you'd never put yourself in that situation again.
Click to expand...


The first time I went to court this is what the CO said, he will request that my fine be reduced to just cover court costs. This would have been OK by me. When I showed up in court, I was talking with another game violated who actually claimed to know the CO. CO told him the same thing that he would recommend that the fine be reduced on his ticket to cover court costs. This guy was called before me and he plead no contest. The judge then asked if the CO had anythig to say and he sat there. Judge found him guilty and charged him full amount for the ticket PLUS costs.

When I saw what happened to him, and knowing that I would probably end up the same, I plead not guilty and went to be heard in front of a judge. I only ended up paying $123 which is less than I think I would have paid at the first court date.

The CO is a good guy, there are no hard feelings from my end. He believes I broke the law and I don't think so. We all learned a little through all of this. Funniest part is that I don't care if I shoot a limit or not. Never have. Don't get me wrong, I don't go out hunting to watch ducks, I go to shoot but the killing of as many as I can legally kill has not been a goal of mine for many years.

I'll look to see if the photo's will scan.

Mark W
 
Having been a CO in our state for 4 years, you would not believe the lack of experiance in some of the officers..Of my group 27 going through the state and wildlife academies only two of us hunted and fished, the other was a weekend warrior type but good guy..I could not believe this. I only lasted four years simply due to the politics and pay. The day I was told to stop working a gill netting case and write pfd tickets I knew it was all over..In the future always always always ask for trial by a jury of your peers. In the 300 plus cases I wrote I lost two both to jury trials and they were as guilty as a cow bird.
 
Rod,
Mark comes here looking for sympathy after getting a citation for over bag with a hen and a ? in his take. The book in his state says one hen. He does not have the backing of the book with a page on cross ducks and takes a personal liberty to make his own call on a right or wrong as to the ? duck. The CO shows up and has a different view. Many here have now said the state ID of hen is wrong without seeing the bird. The judge sided with the state because the hunter did not show in a convincing way that his interpretation was the right one and lost.

Where I live, guilty means no hunting for one year. I dont like hair splitting on the book because you are taking your chances with how the choice will be interpreted. I claim no holy ground and have come to my choices based on my experience learning the book with mistakes made along the way.

I dont like the Beating the CO's freq. get here and other places. With the unsportsman like things I have seen I understand and have come to expect a hard look at my stuff when I see an officer. If I follow the book with a conservative interpretation and I know it, I dont have an issue, period. The paochers make a living out of cheating the book and splitting hairs.

I will make it clear by saying it here, Mark has been very cautious about being critical of the warden and has directed his dissapointment at the, judge, biologist, DA, and the ,System. He has also stated he understands the experience and to avoid it, will consider a more conservative interpretation.
I also state that this is not about being friends or not. Read the post on his job issues if you have any questions on that.

This is a gut feeling for me on how we as hunters make choices and then deal with what happens after pulling the trigger when the State shows up to check on us. We do not have the choice fisherman do of catch and release and it is my feeling that we are better served by a conservative choice on wild state regulated game.

If you like the pile and hate the state book, have at it on one of the many game preserves that cater to the shooter who likes to fill a bag. You pay your way and can shoot to your harts content.
But dont cry on these pages about sky busting or crowded setups or other game related issues(With freq. complaining that a CO is never around when needed) and then stand up and scream when a guy gets checked and it dosnt go his way because he made a choice and it was not clear what was exactlyt going on.

The Scaup/GE cross was a reference to a hypothetical that does not exist to my knowledge but was used to show that a choice of how a law is interpreted leaves the hunter at the mercy of a judge in the final take.

No place I want to be wasting my, or the justice systems, time over a duck, when we are over run with fellow citizens that need a good hard kick in the a$$ from our weak in the knees legal system.
Your either part of the solution or part of the problem.

Bob.
 
Dave
I dont know what state you worked in,but here in NJ the big "push"is on boating operator license(safety cert).Hunt on or near Fed property you have the State CO's, The State Police (Marine Division),and believe it or not The feds checking for that cert.Thats they way it goes in Jersey.I believe in saftey, but those boys like to milk the MV cash cow.Guess what,they always show up when the birds are working.
charley
 
Rod,
Mark comes here looking for sympathy after getting a citation for over bag with a hen and a ? in his take. The CO shows up and has a different view. Many here have now said the state ID of hen is wrong without seeing the bird. The judge sided with the state because the hunter did not show in a convincing way that his interpretation was the right one and lost.

I will make it clear by saying it here, Mark has been very cautious about being critical of the warden and has directed his dissapointment at the, judge, biologist, DA, and the ,System. He has also stated he understands the experience and to avoid it, will consider a more conservative interpretation. I also state that this is not about being friends or not. Read the post on his job issues if you have any questions on that.

Bob.
Click to expand...


Hey Bob -

I don't think I was ever looking for sympathy. I was relating a story that I could have very easily kept to myself. I thought my sittuation would make an interesting learning experience for myself and others on this site so I shared what I went through. I was looking for advice but sympathy, I don't think so. At least this was my intent.

My biggest problem with the situation was that at the landing, the CO was not even sure what kind of a duck it was. As I pointed out all the differences between the questionable duck and the hen mallard, he said that even he was wondering what kind of duck it was. He then went back to his truck and began looking for pictures of what the duck in question was. It was only when the ticket was written, a few days after the incident, that the CO stated he was certain by the field indicators that it was a hen mallard and the duck was confiscated. What really happened at the landing, and what was recorded, were not one in the same. I'll give the CO the benefit of the doubt as to what he remembers. I'm not critical of the CO, he was kind, and he was professional. I think he was wrong but others from the State disagree with me.

As far as the judge siding with the State, by the comments of the judge, he was only trying to learn if it was a hen or not. My opinion is that he didn't understand that the State had to prove it was a hen AND a mallard which I don't think they did. When the CO claims it cannot be a cross duck and then says in the very next line that he has never personally seen a crossed duck, that is a big miss on their end. I don't know how you can identify that which you have never seen.

You are correct, I don't feel bad about the situation. The CO was doing his job, which is not an easy one by the way. During deer season, he had a guy who was not all there pull a gun on him as he approached. I believe he said he had to tackle the guy and haul him away. Risking one's life over a deer, that is someone who believes in what they are doing.

I do appreciate your opinion and welcome both sides thoughts on the matter. Like I said earlier, I have learned a valuable lesson. What is disappointing is that I will now alter my hunting due to situation I just went through. As an example of what I mean, next time I shoot a duck like the one posted below, I'll count it as a hen mallard even though I know that it is not. I don't want to be disagreeing with a CO over what the duck is or what it is not. The duck in question for the case was as obviously not a 100% hen mallard as the duck pictured below is not a hen mallard but a cross.

View attachment duck1.jpg
View attachment duck2.jpg
View attachment duck3.jpg

Mark W

View attachment duck1.jpg
View attachment duck2.jpg
View attachment duck3.jpg
 
From those pics, I couldn't say for certain that what you are calling a cross isn't a mallard hen with a hormone imbalance. I certainly hope you're not basing your determination on bill color because it's variable and under hormonal regulation. It may have some black duck genes, but is certainly at least an F3.

Clint
 
Mark,
If I had one word to change, Sympathy would be it and I did not mean to sound nasty about you posting here, but I believe you got plenty of sympathy from others here.
The picture you posted makes the case for me and this is how.
The judge you saw is like most people, a non hunter, non biologist, who like any non hunter you show that duck to, is going to say you shot two hens.
Here is my point. Put a full drake mallard next to those birds and ask any one of the above type people what you shot.
I bet you loose almost every time.
Like it or not that cross looks more like a hen than I would ever risk my hunting reputation over.
As I said orig. one hen mallard is not even close to worth what risk was involved in the choice to call it a non hen.
With a liberal package in place in all flyways I have to say that I will save one slot in my puddler limit without any complaint till Ive got my drakes. Esp if that bird is what you are going to risk your lic on.
As for the law and what makes it to the judge by the time you see him/her, I am sure you may have experienced some creative writing to help make a case against you, but remember all is fair in love and war, and any wrong dooer is going to doctor his story as well as he can and a lawyer even more, so a judge has to be able to see thru it all and make a decision. Not right, but as I also said your duck was prob. the least of the stuff on the docket that day.
I still think hunters are better served to take the more conservative approach with a case like this because from the picture I see here, the court of public opinion that will decide our fate on hunting sure is gona think your pushing the concept of protecting hens that the book states is the law in your state. (Science or not) And I cant see that one bird looking like a hen and four drakes is such a bad day of hunting.
 
I'm always looking for odd ducks and have yet to shoot one myself. I would not have given that duck more then a couple looks before being sure it was going to count as a hen mallard. I've shot a few hen mallards, especially early in the season, that had green and nearly black bills. The wing is really what does it. The top stripe looks like hen mallard all the way. Like Clint said, yeah he needs me to point out where I think he is right hehehe, it may have some black duck blood in it's past but might isn't enough. I'd even almost say it could be some far back dark colored park duck like a cayuga in it's blood line.

One other thing I've seen on this and other sites that I believe people need to watch out for is park duck crosses. I've seen people almost describe them as an extra duck or one that needs to come out the population. While that may be true they can also be counted as 100% mallard.

Tim
 
From those pics, I couldn't say for certain that what you are calling a cross isn't a mallard hen with a hormone imbalance. I certainly hope you're not basing your determination on bill color because it's variable and under hormonal regulation. It may have some black duck genes, but is certainly at least an F3.

Clint
Click to expand...


I think this is a slippery slope. The laws are written to protect wildlife AND the hunters who participate in the activity. Could you imagine what it would be like if we were just given very vague guidleines on what constituted such and such a duck? The CO could make up whatever they wanted and the courts would agree with the CO conclusions. The laws are clearly written, and the identificaiton books clearly written, to describe what a duck is or isn't.

According to the hormonal imbalance question above. Couldn't the same arguement be said for calling a gadwell a mallard. Both have orange bills, orange feet and brown bodies. Just cause the wing is a little different we'll chalk that up to hormonal imbalance and call it a hen mallard. How about a black duck or mottled duck? They all look pretty much the same except for the black ring where the bill attaches to the head on the mottled (I'm told)and the slight differnces in the speculum, they look the same. The differences can be chalked up to hormonal imbalances right?

How about an early season hen pintail. What else do they look like with a little hormonal imbalance thrown in?

Ducks have to be clearly identifyable to be called whatever. It can be no other way or total anarchy would exist when interpreting game laws. Unless there is a field available DNA kit, there will always be differences in identifying ducks. Since that isn't happening anytime soon, I'll be more conservative in my approach to identifying ducks in the field.

Mark W
 
"the identificaiton books clearly written, to describe what a duck is or isn't."


HUH??? Yeah, it's obviously a duck. All id books describe the "average" bird, not the full range of variation. That bird certainly looks well within the description of a mallard. I don't know how many thousands of mallards I've handled and we probably would have noted that bird was a little odd, but would have had no problem recording it as a mallard.

As for "According to the hormonal imbalance question above. Couldn't the same arguement be said for calling a gadwell a mallard." you're obviously in a state of denial. first of all...it's gadwall, not gadwell, and there are lots of other ways than just it's foot color to identify it as a GADWALL and not a mallard.

Clint
 
Mark its not up to the ducks to look right, it is up to us to ID them correctly. To be honest the dark bill is the only thing I can see that isn't typical hen mallard looking on both of them in those pictures. At the same time I've seen hens with bills like that and I don't shoot many mallards.
For wing ID, and wing ID is what you should always start with IMHO, there are several different wings for each sex because there are some differences in plumage. There are more differences between species then I think you are seeing. One anomaly does not a cross make. The wings I've seen examples of for black duck x mallard crosses the wing is somewhere in between and I don't see anything like that.
I'm still not saying you were wrong in fighting it, I don't like the idea that it took a couple days and it isn't a typical hen mallard.


Tim
 
Mark,

Appreciate your story account... it taught me a lot.

As a non-expert duck hunter, i.e. a guy with little time who likes to shoot ducks when he can, I wouldn't have taken the shot because my brain would have said "hen" in the split second decision that I would have had whether to pull the trigger or not. My brain works overtime missing the birds anyway...

You have a better eye for the subtle differences in species and sex, I don't, so I wouldn't have taken the shot. But, you had/have every right to challenge the CO and you should have been totally cleared... but, the risk that we all run is that CO's judges, etc.. are more like me - more layperson than duck species-cross expert so it's no surprise that the "system" ruled that it was a hen mallard.

The conservative position is to NOT take the shot if a cross looks "too much" like a hen I guess...

Again, thank you for sharing the story... it was a great post and I learned a lot from it..

Andrew
 
That's a typical Mallard/Black Duck cross, I'd say a female too.no hormone imbalance.
Unfortunately it took after the Mallard side more.

I still say the CO could have used his discretion and gave it a pass, or a warning. Probably one of his bosses said, "screw him" write a ticket. 2 days after the fact is chicken shit.
 
How do you come up with 2 days after the fact is chicken shit? Since he orginally thought mark had 2 hen mallards, and he took the duck for a second opinon and it (the opinion) was hen mallard, Id say 2 days after the fact was the co doing all he could to be sure he was right. Mark and him disagreed, but Id rather disagree with someone who took the time to try to find out than to just do the easy thing, which in this case would have been to write it on the spot. The CO didn't come up with anything new after 2 days, he wrote it for what he orignally thought, and what checked out. Right or wrong, I think from the way I read it, Mark was dealth with as fair as the situation allowed.

Mark glad it came out as good as it did. It could have been worse, and I'm glad its over for you. travis
 
Ontario has a good website showing the wing band differences between a mallard and black cross.

Just scroll down a bit to see the pics.
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/enforcement/hunting-e.html

Bill G.
 
Mark

Now that I've seen the pictures, I think the CO was right. He cut you as much slack as he could except for the only possible alternative. That bird is definitely a hen mallard/black duck. From any perspective, if you already had a hen mallard your made a high risk decision to shoot the cross. Your only hope in that case was to have it called a black duck assuming you didn't already have one ( I am too lazy to go back and read your original post). Usually the advantage to shooting a hybrid is that it gets classified as the most common species in the mix (i.e, a mallard x pintail cross would count towards your mallard limit and not your pintail limit) but you would have had to argue that it should be counted towards the black duck bag. Either way, with one hen mallard in the bag and a 1 hen mallard limit, I wouldn't recommend that anyone try to shoot a cross that looked like your bird. Sorry to say it but I think you got off as best you could have as I remember the circumstances.

Brad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top