# Moose Poachering Court Findings



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

*Thank you Bismarck Tribune for reporting this:*

Two men lost their hunting, fishing and trapping privileges in North Dakota and were hit with fines as a result of convictions in separate poaching cases.

Monte Billadeau, of Parshall, was convicted by a six-member jury of hunting big game without a license and aiding in the concealment of unlawfully taken big game, McLean County State's Attorney Ladd Erickson said Wednesday. The trial concluded Tuesday afternoon.

Billadeau's hunting, fishing and trapping privileges were suspended for six years, and he was ordered to pay $2,000 to the Report All Poachers tipline program, Erickson said. Billadeau also was ordered to pay $250 in court costs and given a 60-day jail sentence that was suspended.

Billadeau's son, Ryan Billadeau, was acquitted of a single charge of aiding in the concealment of illegally taken big game by the same McLean County jury.

In Burleigh County District Court, Albert Brendel, a 33-year-old Bismarck man, lost his hunting privileges for two years and was ordered to pay $1,200 in restitution after pleading guilty to four counts of unlawful possession of big game, according to court documents from the April 12 proceeding.

Brendal also was ordered to serve 60 days in the Burleigh County Detention Center, which was suspended.

He also is serving two years unsupervised probation and was ordered to pay court administrative fees of $325. The crimes are class A misdemeanors.

A RAP tip prompted an investigation by a North Dakota Game and Fish Department game warden, which resulted in Brendal facing four charges of being in possession of untagged deer carcasses last November.

Monte Billadeau, a former hunter education instructor, was found innocent of three other charges: illegal taking of big game, hunting off an established trail and discharging a loaded firearm from a vehicle.

"I believe the jury made the proper verdicts in the case based on evidence presented," Erickson said. "Two witnesses were very reluctant to be in court, so the jury may have had some of the gaps filled in if they had testified."

The case involved the illegal shooting of two moose last fall.

A third man was convicted in tribal court last month. Eugene "Sonny" Brugh, of New Town, was fined $1,350 and lost his hunting privileges for one year for his role in gunning down the moose. Brugh, an enrolled member of the Three Affiliated Tribes, was convicted on all counts and fined the maximum for each count under the Three Affiliated Tribes' game and fish code.

(reporter Richard Hinton)


----------



## Springer (Dec 21, 2004)

I think they should have all gotten at least six years hunting and fishing privleges revoked. 
The guys that shot that moose should have gotten alot more than that. :eyeroll:


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

That's it????? Hell, where is the deterrant. There is no reason not to shoot what ever you want, with those types of lax fines. Really poor... :******:


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

I guess looking at this a person really gets frustrated. I mean you donate to various wildlife groups, follow the laws etc. and then you read about this. I have no respect for these guys as people.....


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I don't understand being guilty only of "hunting without a licence" and "illegally concealing unlawfully taken big game" 
Yet NOT GUILTY of "illegal taking of big game, hunting off an established trail and discharging a loaded firearm from a vehicle."

I wasn't there at the trial so can't pass judgement, but something is wrong with this picture!! Maybe when I'm about to hang up my guns for good I'll just set aside a couple thousand for one "last" ND Moose hunt! Heck, might not even be the "last" if you don't get caught!!!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I'd have given them 1 year of prison time, all guns stripped and a 5,000 fine.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

NAW, id just suspend all hunting and fishing privaladges for the next 35 years, and make them pay for the importation of 5 new moose.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

This shows you how complex SB 2041 is going to be when it takes affect in August.

Most here know my views on game violations. We need some laws with teeth :******:

Bob


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

I think its time to let our courts know that we as sportsman will not tolerate pansy A$$ judges doleing out sentences that encourage repeat violations of the law! Spanky spanky sentences are not detering this practice.

Jeeesh They should have the judge that took care of my divorce 15 years ago..they would be screwed big time..


----------



## Draker16 (Nov 23, 2004)

just another slap on the wrist :******:


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Curty, it is not the judges it is the same legislators's who are willing to sell our wildlife. Read the articale the jury found him not guilty of THREE OFFENSE'S, which i don't agree with.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Quote: "it is not the judges it is the same legislators's who are willing to sell our wildlife."

Doesn't matter what the topic is on this website. Someone will always turn it around to silly "out of stater's" paranoia! Maybe I'm stupid, and I probably am, but no matter how hard I try, I don't understand comments like this!


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Pathetic...these sentances do NOTHING to motivate people to do what's right. I don't even know what to say other than this is embarassing to have laws with NO teeth at all. Why even bother having laws at all??

Shoot 35 deer, no big deal, shoot moose, or elk..catch 300 fish over your limit, get caught with 350 ducks in your truck..Have numerous game violatons, admit to having sex with a minor..Again no big deal.

What a horrible message to send.


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

I think the punishment was fair and just. 6 years is a long time. :run:


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

There is a distinct difference between an "honest" mistake and knowing full well that you are breaking the law.


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

> I think the punishment was fair and just. 6 years is a long time.


I am not sure how you think a suspension for anytime can be fair and just. They were convicted of


> hunting big game without a license and aiding in the concealment of unlawfully taken big game


By their mentality they can hunt anytime, anywhere, any species, they don't need no stinking licenses. [/quote]


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

I don't believe in putting non-violent criminals behind bars. I might agree that the fine could have been more but what else do you want?


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Anas, how about never being able to hunt or fish again in this state!!! They obviously don't care about the currentl laws..And alsoa huge fine!!! I'm talking 10,000 plus for such blatent breaking of the law..


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The Thing that everyone here needs to remember, If we want harsher penalties we need the legislature to pass the laws. Loss of hunting rights for 6 years is a severe sentance. The Judge and everyone else involved in bringing this case to conclusion did all they could with the laws of ND as they stand today.

Bob


----------



## grizzly (Jan 14, 2003)

Anas Strepera said:


> I think the punishment was fair and just. 6 years is a long time. :run:


I AGREE


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

In my opinion prison time is not just in this case. Why should taxpayers have the burden for guys who are not "threats" to society. However, I do feel at least 2 years loss of hunting privelages, loss of guns, and a high # of community service hours as well as a fine (2-5,000) to possibly re-locate an animal to the area would be fair. I do believe the biggest thing a judge could make them do is community service (trash pickup in road ditches, etc). I don't know the whole pre-requisit to community service (meaning what kinds of cases it can be handed out in), but they should have to wear a jacket with their offense in big letters on the back of it. I do believe personal shame is one of the things many people fear and would take harder than any fine or a month in jail.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

As I mentioned, I wasn't on the jury to hear the case but how could they find him guilty of hunting and concealing illegally taked big game yet innocent of killing it, driving off road, shooting from vehicles, etc? Did the defence lawyer argue that a bolt of lightning or sudden tornado took down the moose???? Or maybe they had a heart attack???
Also, one more thing. Now that the reservations can do their own thing with game licences, can this guy simply go buy a tribal licence?? I know a guy right now who lost his licence for traspassing and who is planning just that!! There was some talk of the tribes entering the COMPACT with the other states? True or not?? I hope so! One would think the reservations wouldn't want to be the repository of all the riff raff prohibited from hunting anywhere else.... Of course when there are pages in the Bis Tribune every week listing all the people driving while licence suspended, (hardly even a slap on the wrist for that!) suspending hunting/fishing licenses is a minimal punishment. No deterrent there!
I agree that imprisoning people for non violent crimes is stupid, but how about hefty fines, equipment forfiture, LOTS of cummunity service (picking up trash along roads and section lines, for starters)?????


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

HFHH

The shooter was tried in tribal court. No game compact Tribes may do as they wish, nothing in the new law to prohibit anything.

Bob


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

Bob,

Is that the maximum sentence they could have received? (I do not know what the actual amount is). If they did not receive the maximum punishment in all forms (restrictions and fines) I don't think you can say the judge did all they could.

6 years is devastating to a law abiding citizen, but to one who thinks they are above seasons and game laws, is nothing. Not even a slap on the wrist.

Maybe everyone who applied for a moose tag and was rejected should sue them in civil court? I know, too much with the legal system but I hope people are contacting their reps. about this and at least asking for higher fines, confiscation of weapons and equipment, and community service. (especially if you do not believe in incarceration).


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Steve

I do not know the Maximum penalty, I will find out. I agree with you on the 6 year penalty. I should have said they did all they could with the evidence they had ( a whole other story)

Steve, This is all I could find

State Laws
All authority to regulate hunting and fishing or protection of North Dakota's natural resources rests with the State Legislature. Game and Fish laws created by the Legislature are found in the Century Code under Title 20.1 and this Title is administered by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Ownership of fish and wildlife in North Dakota is held by the State in trust for the public. North Dakota Law states that "Any person catching, killing, taking, trapping, or possessing any wildlife protected by law at any time or in any manner is deemed to have consented that the title there to remains in the state for the purpose of regulating the
taking, use, possession and disposition thereof." (NDCC § 20.1-01-03 Source)

The Legislature makes laws setting standards of care and custody of wildlife for the use of the citizens and visitors of the State. The Legislature meets every two years. Because they cannot react quickly to changing conditions they have authorized the Governor by consultation with the Game and Fish Department to set seasons, prescribe limits and methods of hunting that need to have flexibility. The Governor does this by issuing a
Proclamation for each season. The Governor's Proclamation has the force and effect of law and its restrictions are enforced in the same manner as individual statutes in Title 20.1.

The Legislature also has delegated rulemaking authority to the Game and Fish Director to adopt rules to regulate an activity such as that given to regulate guides and outfitters. Promulgated rules are reviewed by the Legislative Administrative Rules Committee prior to their implementation.
Penalties for violation of Game and Fish Laws can be either "criminal" or "non-criminal". Criminal statutes carry a potential penalty of a non set fine and jail sentence upon conviction and are judged in the judicial system by the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Non-criminal statutes have a set fee for a violation of that statute or rule and are judged in the judicial system by the standard of a "preponderance of the evidence." The bulk of criminal Game and Fish statutes are either class B or class A misdemeanor with the exception of a couple of statutes where under certain circumstances a violation would be a Class C Felony. Many minor violations are classified as non-criminal and carry a specific fee as a penalty up to a maximum of $250. Under North Dakota law, two other types of penalties can occur. If an offense is a criminal offense, a person convicted may be subject to loss of all equipment including vehicles used or held with intent to be used to take fish or wildlife. No forfeiture of equipment or vehicles can occur for a non-criminal violation. A person's license to hunt, fish and trap may be suspended for three years on any criminal offense. Hunting on posted land carries a mandatory suspension for one year. All other suspensions are at the discretion of the Court hearing the case. Non-criminal offenses are not subject to license suspensions. North Dakota is a member of the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact. So any suspension of a license in North Dakota may become a suspension in all other member states. Conversely if an out of state conviction results in a suspension in that state and that state is a member of the compact, the individual could lose his or her license privileges in this State. It is the responsibility of the person suspended to check their status with the other States in the Compact.

FEDERAL LAW
The primary Federal Acts administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Duck Stamp Act, Lacey Act, Bald Eagle Act and Endangered Species Act. All these "Acts" were created by the United States Congress to regulate and protect fish and wildlife that moves from State to State or whose status has become endangered and requires the resources of the Federal Government to save it. The Service
is highly visible in North Dakota mostly in duck and goose management and its administration of Refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas. North Dakota has more Federal Wildlife Refuges than any other State in the Nation.
In the implementation of the Acts enumerated above, the Service has rule making authority to carry out the mandates of the Act. These Federal laws each impose criminal
penalties for violations. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act sets seasons for hunting of migratory birds. The Service sets a framework for fall waterfowl hunting by flyway and gives States the options of setting their seasons within that framework. Season length and bag limits are what most
people see. The Lacey Act makes it a Federal Offense to transport or ship illegally taken or possessed wildlife or fish into Interstate Commerce (transported out of the state). Depending on the
value of the wildlife or fish and or the fees paid for service to take the illegal wildlife or fish a violation of the Lacey Act can be a Felony.

Bob


----------

