Toye

Congratulations on my best friends continued success with guiding.  You are a class act my friend.

The purpose of the Federal Prosecutor presenting the case to the Grand Jury is to ensure probable cause has been established to support the case going further. The Grand Jury ruled such probabe cause existed on the charges presented and indicted those persons......thus a "weak" case or one not supported by probable cause would have been dismissed and no indictments issued.

To say why did it take so long to bring this case to an indictment.....well, not to minimize an over bagging of waterfowl violation, but it probably was not at the top of the list of cases the Federal Prosecutor's Office had referred to them ,nor at the top of the list of cases to be to be heard by a Grand Jury for the Federal District Court of that geographic region.

I'm more than willing to bet the Federal and State wardens, etc, have enough work to keep them busy that they don't need to go looking for "weak" cases to make up their workload.

That brings one to the plea bargain, which is used quite frequently to resolve cases of less severe violations in which no previous violations or criminal history exist for said violator. This allows for the court to have record, the violator to receive punishment, and establish a conviction should any future violations occur. It frees up time and resources for the prosecutor and court system.  A violator accepts a plea bargain to a lesser offense to avoid prosecution, conviction, and penalties of the more severe alleged offense.

I'm guessing our DNR was in on the uranium deal that nobody's talking about also

To add my opinion; you can find evidence to support whatever side you choose to support.  If they have a recording of a guide saying to continue shooting; guilty.  If a warden must break the law to enforce the law, it's gonna happen.  Undercover agents buy drugs all the time too.  It's a necessary way to enforce laws and is nothing new and it will keep happening.  I believe the individual should be able to keep track of what they shoot but I also believe it's the guide's livelihood so they should keep better track of what is happening in their boat.  They know it's their responsibility.  If the feds had such a thin case, why didn't the guide ask for a jury trial?  I understand the time and money involved and the stiffer penalty if found guilty but if I was the guide and I was sure it was a weak case, I'd have pressed on.  I've known several state wardens and have had no problems with any of them.  A lot of it is they way you present yourself.  Be a dick and ask for trouble and you've probably found it.

Good point.  I spoke without thinking it through but sometimes I feel that Wisconsin wardens have screwed objective. In Wisconsin with the DNR you are guilty until proven innocent.  Go to another state and talk to them. They are nice and chuckle about our DNR. 

When I was in college I worked at a gas station and they'd send in people who were underage from time to time to try and buy cigarettes or beer to make sure you were checking IDs. If you sold it to them you got fined and an unpaid vacation from work the rest of the week. People who did get nabbed on that would always try and blame the underage person for trying to buy it and say that they should get in trouble.

Saying the warden should be in trouble sounds just like those who failed to do their job and check the ID. It's a straight forward thing that the guides failed to do and now they need to be responsible for their actions. No hidden agendas involved with making sure people are following game regulations.

Sting or not I'd say the guy that shot 8 to bust him should pay.  I don't think a cop can drive drunk to bust a meth ring?

This is some funny stuff guys. The feds gave the guide below a chance to that show all reports where false but he failed that test. He even said in his post of his side of the story. Yes as a hunter you should know and follow the laws. But as a guide you are responsible for all action done durning the clients paid time with you no questions ask. All he needed to do was when the Fed claimed to have shot 8 birds is pull the plug on the hunt and call the dnr and report him. But the guide just blew him off cause he claimed that the Fed didnt kill that many. He failed his test and is lucky get what he got. He may be a great guy/guide i have family members that have hunted with and say he's a top notch but he didn't do his job as a guide. Waterfowl hunting is my passion i wish the hammer would been dropped on all 3.

I'm with Phil on this one guys, there is more to this all. I also know one of these guides first hand and he is a hell of a guide and is not the criminal the feds are making the story out to be. Could it have been handled differently by the guide, MAYBE, but it sounds like he handled it well and the feds did what they wanted to nab him and build a case....It's not right, and he could have fought it, but as he explained himself you can see why he pled the way he did. The sad thing is, something like this can ruin a very good, honest, and repitable guide. The feds built a case out of nothing to make an example out of someone, at least in this one's case. I've "blanked" out dates and names as I agree it's not my place to spread someones personal news, but reading all the bashing thats going on here I thought his side should be heard. Hopefully this is large enough for you all to read.

They took the plea when court cost, lawyer fees and lost wages were taken into account.  If it was such a gret case why didn't the feds use this opportunity to throw the book at them.  Just funny how a plea deal was offered when the Feds claimed they had such a great case. 

Always easy to say you would fight it if innocent until cost is figured in.  Sometimes easier to to take a plea deal and get it over with. 

They had their chance to tell their story,they chose to plead guilty.

Read the grand jury indictment.

If they choose to tell there story they can put a name to it.  It is not my place to give out there name.  Saying it has 0 credibility is shortsighted.  I am just adding to the story from a first hand account.  I didn't say the wardens had a vendetta against them.  From my source an undercover warden claimed he shot 7 ducks in the recording.  If that is the case he over bagged and admitted it.  Why is that not a problem.  Like I have said, I am just adding to the conversation from the additional information that I have.  And again this is only from 1 of the 3 guides.  Again I will not mention who that is as it is not my place to mention them.   

If they are not willing to put a name to their story than they have 0 credibility. I thinking the media would be all over any info the could get, as they hype up any story they can get their greasy fingers on. 

Also the federal wardens said they were encouraged to shoot over their limit, there is not a mention that they actually chose to do so, at least from anything I have read.

They decided to conduct this sting operation based on complaints from other hunters so I doubt the validity of this unknown person's claims that it was a personal vendetta by federal officials against them.

There is not article that states any of this.  I am just posting information that I have from one of the guides that took the plea deal.  I will not mention any names as it is not my place.  Just trying to put both sides of the story out there since the media will not do that.

Phil, please post an article or something similar that verifies what you are saying.