LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-11 AT 07:21AM (MST)[p]If there is a Dept. employee or employees involved, then it should be turned over to an independent agency for a full investigation. Then if the investigation finds criminal wrongdoing the individual(s) should be charged with a crime, just as anybody else would be. I find your use of the words poacher and poaching interesting though. It appears from your last post that you are merely saying he should be charged with poaching, but not called a poacher until after being convicted and that's basically correct from my point of view. Maybe you should have actually said "alleged poacher". That is normally how crimes are reported to prevent what appears to be a conviction before the charges have been proved and the person found guilty and legally convicted. As a retired Investigator with the Michigan Department of Agriculture, it was very important to use correct terminology in all reports to eliminate any pretense of bias against a person or firm which, in turn, could potentially be used to the violators advantage in a court case. As most of us know, many violators slip through the cracks and have cases dismissed just because of minor "technicalities". Anyway, I think all who have responded on this thread would argue that calling this poaching is a stretch if it was done out in the open with knowledge of other people. If the buck was shot secretly and the person was trying to keep the animal for his own trophy, then I think it would probably fall into the poaching category. Until all the actual facts are out in the open, I really don't feel anyone should make that kind of a declaration. I really hope that all concerned citizens in the immediate area where this happened get together and press the issue to put enough heat on the Dept. to get to the bottom of that great animal being taken down!
Was this the buck rumored around that was living in the subdivision in 194-196? The "dirt" I was looking for was the score on that "pig" (AKA mule deer). 
