A scandalous charge for killing a grizz

[Marty S]

How about someone give ole Ronald a call and ask him the rest of the story. Tell him the fine folks on the Alberta Outdoor forum desire to know the truth!

We have a right to know and this slanted media don't play nice no more!

[woods_walker]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by woods_walker View Post
Should have got higher fines than they did. Definitely more to the story than the article says. Definitely not a shot the bear as it surprised them. It should mention something about 'never seen a grizzly there on the property yet there was evidence and gps data of it being there' and then there should be some information about where the gps collar was found, like it had to be fished out of the water kilometers away...
Woods, can you expand abit more please?? [QUOTE]

Hopefully the quote reference worked. 'Coffee shop' story in the area from good sources is when the mortality signal on the collar was checked out it was on/near the property of the charged and when asked it was claimed that no grizzly had been seen but a black bear was in the area or something like that. A further check around the area found evidence of that grizzly being there (which the GPS collar also showed) and evidence it was killed. There was no story on dead livestock or anything like that either. The guys were then found to be in possession of the bear hide once more investigation occured. The GPS signal continued to be picked up and the collar was found many kilometers away in a pond near or in the McLeod River well away from where the bear was killed. Obviously not a court transcript recall of the evidence. The Hinton/Edson area has a lot of research efforts tied into grizzly bears and their populations so when one is poached the info finds a way to surface. This one happens to be a collared one that the folks had an easier time tracking it's movements and subsequent death. Obviously the court transcript will show 'what really happened'. I don't think it helps the story mentions hunting when it sounded like this was simply poaching a grizzly. That's all I can expand on further.

[element2012]

Big difference between shooting a bear you think is stalking you and one were you hang out the window of the pickup and shoot. Hopefully the judge did a good job of deciding were on the scale the accused fit.

[R3illy]

fish and wildlife released very specific info on this case that can put to rest all the conspiracy theories from everyone.

[Taco]

Originally Posted by R3illy

fish and wildlife released very specific info on this case that can put to rest all the conspiracy theories from everyone.

Link or source please.

[Imagehunter]

They posted this on Facebook today:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...79802275611835

Don't know if it works without facebook so here's the text:

Two men have pleaded guilty to offences involving the poaching of a grizzly bear in May 2016. Biologists at fRI Research notified fish and wildlife officers that a GPS tracking collar on the grizzly bear had stopped reporting.

An investigation determined that it had been shot by Ronald Raymond Motkoski on his property near Edson. A resident of his property alerted him to the presence of the grizzly bear on the morning of May 25. Motkoski then took his rifle and ATV and drove down his driveway where he saw the bear walking towards buildings on his property. Motkoski shot the bear and disposed of the collar, and John Peter Grant skinned it and tacked the hide to a wood board so that it could be preserved. The bear was three or four years old and weighed approximately 200 pounds.

On September 12, 2017, Edson Provincial Court assessed Motkoski a penalty of fines totalling $12,702.76. On February 7, 2017, Edson Provincial Court assessed Grant a penalty of fines totalling $6,000. Both individuals were suspended from hunting for five years. The fines include restitution to fRI Research for the cost of the collar as well as funding for Alberta’s BearSmart program.

On recommendation from the Endangered Species Conservation Committee, grizzly bears were listed as Threatened in Alberta in 2010.

[Taco]

Thanks


Obviously pair of junior rocket scientists

[ward]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Lol you beat me to it. Always thought it was word of mouth. lol

Word of mouth is better than any other explanation I have heard so far.

[HoytCRX32]

200 lbs? 3 to 4 years? For some reason that doesn't sound right...wouldn't it be heavier?

[Bighorn River]

No sympathy from me. Fine should have been higher.

Did he lose any cattle? Did he call F&W? Was their any imminent threat?

You live near the bush you accept wildlife. You don't get to illegally poach any protected predator that strays on your property.

[Little red riding hood]

Originally Posted by Bighorn River

No sympathy from me. Fine should have been higher.

Did he lose any cattle? Did he call F&W? Was their any imminent threat?

You live near the bush you accept wildlife. You don't get to illegally poach any protected predator that strays on your property.

Agreed! I have no problem with a bear walking across my land, (most of them can't read a no trespassing sign) if he decided to take up residence in my back yard I'd get a little antsy, but I'm not going trigger happy just because I see a bear!

[R3illy]

but you guys cat and many others claimed a conspiracy was in the works.... there's more to the story. /s

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by R3illy

but you guys cat and many others claimed a conspiracy was in the works.... there's more to the story. /s

I never said a single thing about a conspiracy, I said there was more to the story than simply shooting a bear , which there was.
What's your point?
Cat

[R3illy]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

I never said a single thing about a conspiracy, I said there was more to the story than simply shooting a bear , which there was.
What's your point?
Cat

You defended a poacher on the basis there was A LOT more to this story. It turns out there wasnt much more to it other then the odd detail none of us would be expected to know. The guy poached. It's pretty clear.

I guess im missing all the stuff you thought was missing.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by R3illy

You defended a poacher on the basis there was A LOT more to this story. It turns out there wasnt much more to it other then the odd detail none of us would be expected to know. The guy poached. It's pretty clear.

I guess im missing all the stuff you thought was missing.

I have absolutely NO idea hiw in the world you came to that conclusion but you are dead wrong .
I SAID there was more to the story , I made no inference of defending the people involved .
Next time before you start slinging crap in my direction get your damned facts STRAIGHT!
Cat

[R3illy]

But there wasnt more to the story. It was made very clear from fish and wild life that the land owner poached the bear.

You might need to take your tin foil hat off every now and then.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by R3illy

But there wasnt more to the story. It was made very clear from fish and wild life that the land owner poached the bear.

You might need to take your tin foil hat off every now and then.

You are the one jumping to conclusions with a tin foil hat on .
It doesn't take a rocket scientist yo figure out there was more than self defense when a collar is not hound with a bear and there is ab****rdion of wildlife charge which BTW I had mentioned earlier if you had bothered to read all the posts
You need to troll elsewhere fir an argument .......
Cat

[Grump]

From the facts posted above, I'd agree with the assertion that the penalties should have been stiffer. As someone who plays by the rules - as most of us do - it ****es me off when others think that the book only selectively applies to them.