Investigative Reporting- Poached Alligator??

[DFWPI]

Curtintex, you beat me to the punch.

People, read the Constitution and the law. Burden is on the State to prove the charge, not the defendant. I do not know the details or evidence in this case, and I assume nobody in this blog knows either. All we know is what was printed in the paper, on the news and what everybody speculates.

Although entertaining, we are just stating personal opinions about this case. As for me, I see where the land owner has a reason to say what he said, but that's my opinion and I will keep it to myself.

Carry on......

[All Lit Up]

It seems strange to me that everyone is equating a verbal agreement to hunt someone's property with a verbal agreement to sell hunts on someone's property.
I have hunted more than a few places with just the owner or agent's permission, but there is no way that I would even consider selling a hunt without the land owner's permission.
Kind of counter intuitive to sell something that you can not prove a right to and then claim someone is "out to get you" when you get called on it.
Hope it all gets straightened out.

[Ol Thumper]

Im ready,

[Artos]

They do not have to prove they had permission to hunt there. The proof is on the state. The DA has to prove they did not have permission. The landowner's word may not be enough to convince a jury. Landowner could be a horrible witness...he could be lying. Either way, the attorney for the GarGuys just has to convince one person on a jury that they got, or thought they got, verbal permission and they get off. I don't know they guys, but it's super ballsy to trespass as an outfitter. Maybe they have those stones, but I doubt it.



I've got $100 that says they're are not found of poaching. First one to take the bet can pay me in cash.

I hope they line up for you but doubt you will get any takers from the fortune tellers. One person out of 12 who could give a crap about a gator?? No thanks on that bet.

[Westi314]

regardless of how good of guys they are, or the fact that one of the accused is a lawyer, the cut and dried deal is this

1. did they have actual permission to be on the property.
2. where exactly was the animal shot? in the river on a sand bar, or on the banks of the property.

the rest is junk in a court of law, regardless of how many character witnesses they have.

Where they shot it is not the question. It was shot on private property. One of the early articles stated that it was a sandbar only because they were eager to get the article out before getting the facts. TPWD released its first statement stating such, and then after it was too late released a "revised statement".

The only question at hand is whether they had landowner permission. State laws say that gators may NOT be shot IN the river, so technically a sandbar would be illegal. However, that is not what TPWD is trying to charge them for.