Freak's charged with felony

[87TT]

You don’t have to have written permission, it says you should get written permission or another form of permission. Also even if the landowner gives written permission they may revoke that permission at any time, so to me verbal permission is good enough


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right about written permission but if I was in his position (and not a lying poacher), I would make sure written permission was in my hand. And according to IDFG, it is the hunter/angler's responsibility to know when he is on private.
“Trespass laws have changed, but the core philosophies have not,” said Idaho Fish and Game’s Enforcement Bureau Chief Greg Wooten. “It’s still the sportsman’s responsibility to know when they’re on private property and obtain permission to be there.”

 

[nobody]

So written permission would be good until revoked? Seems like extra burden placed on the land owner.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

All I mean is if it's in writing, the hunter would need to be notified in writing (or text, or email, or somehow) that the permission is revoked. Just some way that can be traced and in a way that the words/message can't be twisted. Obviously, if there's some type of in-person altercation or something, then revocation would occur right then and there. But if a physical altercation occurs, the authorities are probably going to be involved anyways, which introduces the paper trail I'm talking about.

Bottom line, hunters leave when they're told to leave. But I believe it would benefit all involved for the landowner to provide a note or something that says "As of the 12th of November, you are no longer allowed to hunt my property." Put it in a text even, who cares. But that way nobody's words get twisted.

Verbal permission = verbal revocation; written permission = written revocation

Sorry, I'm probably not explaining it well. Not super eloquent over here.

 

[realunlucky]

All I mean is if it's in writing, the hunter would need to be notified in writing (or text, or email, or somehow) that the permission is revoked. Just some way that can be traced and in a way that the words/message can't be twisted. Obviously, if there's some type of in-person altercation or something, then revocation would occur right then and there. But if a physical altercation occurs, the authorities are probably going to be involved anyways, which introduces the paper trail I'm talking about.

Bottom line, hunters leave when they're told to leave. But I believe it would benefit all involved for the landowner to provide a note or something that says "As of the 12th of November, you are no longer allowed to hunt my property." Put it in a text even, who cares. But that way nobody's words get twisted.

Verbal permission = verbal revocation; written permission = written revocation

Sorry, I'm probably not explaining it well. Not super eloquent over here.

Typically any extra effort from a land owner is an easy no go. Why would they go above and beyond to do anyone a favor with nothing in return.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Crowmangler]

I finally watched it myself. Like others have said how in the world did it get this far if what he says actually happened? Are there multiple landowners for this property and they all weren't on the same page?? 2+2 is not adding up to 4 still...

Really curious how this will turn out.

Maybe someone should go the landowner & offer him their platform to let him give his side of the story on video too. Easy for someone to take a side when they only get to hear that one side presented.

 

[sacklunch]

Typically any extra effort from a land owner is an easy no go. Why would they go above and beyond to do anyone a favor with nothing in return.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Nothing in return!? He gave him a MF Nalgene worth at last $7.

 

[nobody]

Typically any extra effort from a land owner is an easy no go. Why would they go above and beyond to do anyone a favor with nothing in return.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

True. IDK, maybe I'm up in the night.

 

[mikeafeagin22]

First off, the guy is clearly an absolute tool. I don’t think anyone is really arguing that.. I watched the Instagram video and I watched the actual YouTube video of the hunt. (At least I’m pretty sure it’s the right one.. kind of crazy that they would, or even be allowed to, post that hunt on their YouTube with all the legal stuff going on.) But if you watch the video, he takes a TERRIBLE shot on that deer. All he sees is the head and neck while the rest of the deer is in brush and has him pinned. He sends one anyways, misses the shot a foot to the right but the deer jumps the string and steps into the arrow. Dead deer. I’m not trying to stand all high and mighty and say I haven’t taken shots I shouldn’t have before but that one was ridiculous. Then replayed it in slow motion all excited about how great the shot was.. All I’m saying in the longest winded way possible I guess is that it’s very easy for me to believe that a guy that’s going to send an arrow at a deer that he can’t even see also wouldn’t mind “bending” the rules by about a mile to go chase said deer. Especially with the previous reputation attached.. BUT I have personally been in a situation where I had permission to bow hunt a property down the street from my farm where the guy said I could kill any deer I wanted.. hunted there a couple years and everything was great. Ended up arrowing a high 140s 8 (thats a toad in the area I live) and you’d have thought I shot him. That’s been a few years now and I’ve never stepped foot on the place again. He didn’t come out and revoke my permission but things got sour real quick. That was the fourth or fifth buck I had killed on his place and he was always very nice before that. Was all smiles and congratulations. Just saying big bucks can make people go crazy. On either side of the story

 

[Northslope801]

I can't imagine his attorney would be too excited about him trying to prove his innocence on social media. I would think that his counsel has told him to lay off the Instagram, but you can definitely tell that is his heroin. There aren't many other guys in the industry that love themselves as much as he does.

 

[fngTony]

Just trying to allow this thread to stay alive. I removed several minor comments that could have been considered slanderous.

 

[IrkedCitizen]

It's not slander if it is true.

 

[fngTony]

It's not slander if it is true.

Depends on the context.

 

[Bubblehide]

It's not slander if it is true.

Does that mean you have proof and you're holding out on us.

 

[IrkedCitizen]

I hope he cries in front of this Judge just like he did in Utah. Hopefully Idaho doesn't roll over though. He is a habitual offender. He can take his Nalgene bottle and shove it where the sun don't shine.

 

[87TT]

OK, we will see when the court date gets here. If it gets postponed again, then he‘s Probably guilty. Innocent people don’t need to put off going to trial. If he cuts a deal it’s because he’s knows he is.

 

[CorbLand]

I can't imagine his attorney would be too excited about him trying to prove his innocence on social media. I would think that his counsel has told him to lay off the Instagram, but you can definitely tell that is his heroin. There aren't many other guys in the industry that love themselves as much as he does.

I hope he uses a better one than last time.

 

[SwiftShot]

All I mean is if it's in writing, the hunter would need to be notified in writing (or text, or email, or somehow) that the permission is revoked. Just some way that can be traced and in a way that the words/message can't be twisted. Obviously, if there's some type of in-person altercation or something, then revocation would occur right then and there. But if a physical altercation occurs, the authorities are probably going to be involved anyways, which introduces the paper trail I'm talking about.

Bottom line, hunters leave when they're told to leave. But I believe it would benefit all involved for the landowner to provide a note or something that says "As of the 12th of November, you are no longer allowed to hunt my property." Put it in a text even, who cares. But that way nobody's words get twisted.

Verbal permission = verbal revocation; written permission = written revocation

Sorry, I'm probably not explaining it well. Not super eloquent over here.

Written revoking, they could just say they did not get it
Written permission is easy, put a time frame on it. That makes it no longer good past a certain date. Now texting permission has been given is a thought.

 

[KenLee]

NOT defending Muley Freak in the slightest, can't stand him. My wife got me a couple of his T-Shirts a couple years ago on sale at Al's sporting goods and I knew nothing of him. So I went home and watched a couple of his videos and ended up junking the shirts. Want nothing to do with Eric.

That said, I think written permission should ALWAYS be required. It leaves a paper trail for all to have a copy of. But at the same time, if written permission is required to hunt, then a landowner should have to issue a written revocation of that permission. If it's in black and white, it's a contractual agreement, period. In order to terminate the contract, both parties should be required to meet and sign the new agreement revoking the permission. Then it eliminates the "he said/she said" issues that arise.

Again, not defending MF Eric, and I have nothing against private landowners. My in-laws own 8 sections in Montana and fight trespassers big time, so I know it's a common issue. But having everything in writing can protect everyone's hind end at the end of the day.

It's not a contract unless the owner actually received something in return for the permission. Even if written.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

If you get permission to hunt a piece of private, make sure you have it in writing, or record the landowner giving you permission with your phone.

Does taking a blurry photo through a car window of you giving a cheap gift to a landowner count as permission? Asking for a friend.

 

[Billy Goat]

Small potatoes to out west, but anyone that I have given permission to hunt/fish, doesn't have anytime they want permission. They text me and ask by the day(s). It keeps everything clear, and allows people to go uninterrupted. It's not difficult, I get a text and say that's cool, or not then.


That won't work everywhere, but I don't like giving out permission that people can be there at anytime.


Anytime I have hunted property I don't control, I always give a heads up. Just see it as a courtesy, even places that I'm welcome anytime.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Does taking a blurry photo through a car window of you giving a cheap gift to a landowner count as permission? Asking for a friend.

“See, here’s a picture of me giving the landowner a water bottle and a gift card to a steakhouse, I obviously must have had permission”

A photo of you talking to the landowner proves absolutely nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk