Iditarod musher Jeff King pleads not guilty to killing moose inside Denali Park
Published Friday, May 9, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Iditarod champion Jeff King pleaded not guilty Friday to charges of illegally killing a moose in Denali National Park and Preserve and wants a jury to decide the case.
Bethel attorney Myron Angstman, who is representing King, entered the plea for the well-known Denali Park musher by telephone in U.S. District Court in Fairbanks.
A tentative trial date has been set for July 2, though that is likely to change.
King, who is attending his daughter’s college graduation in Minnesota, also participated by telephone, as did U.S. Attorney Aunnie Steward of Anchorage.
Magistrate Terrance Hall asked King if he had reviewed the details of the case with his attorney, and King replied that he had. Then Hall read the charges.
The 51-year-old King, who has won the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race four times and is sponsored by Cabela’s, the world’s largest hunting, fishing and outdoor gear retailer, is accused of illegally shooting a moose inside Denali National Park and Preserve last September and driving an all-terrain vehicle in areas not designated for motor vehicles.
Park rangers say King shot a young bull moose on Sept. 6, 2007, about three-quarters of a mile inside the northeast boundary of the park north of Healy and used a four-wheeler to transport bones a short distance from the kill site. King has called the charges “bogus” and said he intends to fight them.
Both charges are Class B misdemeanors with a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $5,000 fine, Steward said.
Most of the 25-minute arraignment was spent trying to figure out a trial date. Angstman agreed to a tentative trial date of July 2 but said he will petition the court for another date because he won’t be available at that time due to another trial.
Angstman also told Hall that he will petition for a jury trial “based on legal issues we won’t bother the court with today.”
Pretrial motions in the case must be filed by May 29, Hall said.
When Hall asked Angstman how long he thought a trial would take, the Bethel attorney replied that it should take “no more than two days, and one day may do it.”
Noting that King had no previous criminal offenses “other than a lead foot a couple of times” and that he was a longtime resident of Denali Park, Hall released King without bail or any other conditions of release based on a promise to appear in court when required.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
The Brown Shirts attack once more!
It's the King's deer!
The National Park Service has no basis for existence under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Furthermore, in violation of the 10th Amendment of the same, National Parkstaffel personnel have illegally usurped the State of Alaska's sovereign authority in regard to land and wildlife management issues as well as failing to respect hunting privileges and/or licenses granted to Mr. King under the State of Alaska's constitutionally vested authority.
I therefore ask Governor Palin to direct Alaska State Troopers to arrest all National Parkstaffel personnel and deport them to the Lower 48 as soon as possible.
wish i could get on that jury
Wish I could afford to shoot moose in a national park and then hire a team of lawyers to defend me if I get caught.
Good Luck Jeff. This is a case that should have never been brought forward!! Best of luck to you, I am pulling for ya.
I have two questions to pose in regards to this case.
1. Why did he take a shot that did not instantly put the moose down. (In my hunting days I took 3 caribou and a Dall ram. Each was killed instantly with one shot. I figured if I didn't have such a clear, killing shot I had no business firing the gun.)
2. Why did he apparently then drive his ATV where it is illegal to take one? As a hunter he is obliged to know the boundaries of where he hunts and taking an ATV across such a boundary is inexcusable.
Mind you, on the second that is still a legal matter to be decided. The circumstances delineate the first item, though, and that still stands as a valid question. A hunter is always obliged to make sure his or her first shot should be the only shot needed. If it's a matter of practicing one's markmanship before hunting that is also an obligation of a hunter. I'm not trying to be snooty or anything by saying this. It's only common sense and hunter ethics. One shot, one dead animal. Not one shot and an animal able to go 300 yards.
to dobieman; I have lived in Alaska for many many years and have been surrounded all my life by hunters of all ages..and many of them crackshots and someone who ought to be proud of their marksmanship. However..from stories I have heard.. even the Best sometimes fail to bring down an animal as big as a Moose the first shot around. It happens and it is not unusual or uncommon. I imagine if all you have are the 4 animals you mention.. then you havent had that much experience taking enough animals to finally get the one that "won't go down"....... Im glad you brought down 'those' animals with one shot.. but like anything in life.. if you were to continue to hunt for many years to come..its my guess that ONE DAY you will encounter the one animal that 'Won't Go down' on the first shot either.. then you will know what its like and then maybe you won't be so quick to make a quick judgement on another whose animal ran before it dropped. but in the meantime keep up the good marksmanship .... that is something to be proud of. Just dont be too quick to judge someone else, someday it will happen to you too possibly.
What I can't believe is that our court system is wasting time and money for this matter. Jeff lives down there and has for years. He hunts for food not just sport. This wasn't a trophy situation that he did just so he could say that he killed a moose or caribou in Alaska. So why are we again wasting the court systems time? Those morons that drove their trucks five miles off the road onto a state sanctioned property didn't get court time nor the threat of jail time! And they AREN'T Alaskan's!!! Slap Jeff's wrist the same as those morons and lets use taxpayers money for something worth while like keep that mental case in prison for killing a human!
Poor subsistence-living Jeff King. Wouldn't it be simpler for him to pay the fine and hope this doesn't get too much attention by the media? If he wins, I'm going to start scouting for a nice bull around the boundary. Sounds like the area King hunts might be productive. Hope Jeff won't mind sharing with the rest of us slobs.
I'm sure not gonna second-guess anything here based on info none of us have. But I want to give a shout out to Jeff King and wish him well; my wife and I got to know Jeff a little bit when he used to run the Quest and we'd be down at Biederman's Cabin.
For dobieman (Art), well I've lived in the bush for nearly three decades now and we depend on moose. The way it works is this: The best, safest shot to take on a bull moose is in the lung/heart area. This doesn't immediately kill/drop the animal, and sometimes they can and will walk into water if you are near a river or lake or they can walk 50 to 100 yds even before dying. I try to teach most hunters to avoid the "neck" shots that can kill a moose instantly because those lead to a lot of woundings where the moose gets away. They are great for close range if you know where to shoot. The fact of the matter is that what is "humane" in reality is often something that doesn't kill instantly.
Cheers,
Mark Richards
Guilty!
It's a wonder that they didn't also charge him with having a loaded firearm inside the park boundary. That is another bogus and unconstitutional Federal regulation that exists in direct contradiction to the 2nd Amendment.
I am amazed that Jeff King has done so many dog races through difficult terrain, but managed to "get lost" in Denali. Just because he is good at telling dogs what to do he should not be treated differently from anyone else who fails to recognize and obey park boundaries.
So what kind of proof could they have against his word on how it happened, a video or what? Seems kind of ridiculous to me. I think that the intent of the law was to ensure hunters didnt go into the park and hunt them out NOT stop a hunter from retrieving an animal that he shot outside the imaginary line (not seen by a wounded moose of course). Should he have let a wounded animal goes because it ran to far? That sounds inhumane to me.
Is it true::: If I hit a moose on the road, I don't get it?
If a moose comes on my property and dies...Fish and game won't
take it away?
buboy... If you hit a moose on the road it is generally given to charity. The AST has a list of authorized groups who they rotate down the list so when an animal has been killed and the meat can be used they notify the group who sends out someone to cut it up and tote it away for distribution to lower-income families, etc, qualifying for such help.
If a moose comes on your property and dies I *believe* (and I am saying this only from a very recent and singular experience) F&G does not come and take it away. It becomes your responsibility or property, however you might view it. I wouldn't quote me on the legal status of this second situation because I have only seen it happen once and that was through hearsay but I know the property owner did contact F&G and was told they do not haul them off. I would assume you could contact the AST and have them notify someone on their roadkill salvage list but that's just a guess on my part.
Charity is subjective.
Here in Two Rivers, it was a well known fact that when their turn came to get a moose, the meat was passed around amongst the favored members of the church. None of whom were hurting.
(This is the TR Baptist church at about 22 mile, not the one at 14 mile).
I have a letter around here somewhere from a guy in NP who, several years back, was trying to take some sort of accounting as to who was actually getting the meat--the needy or the favored church members.
His "investigation" went nowhere; the paper wouldn't change its easy reporting rut, nor help investigate or publish the truth about road kills.
I have been involved in, and witnessed, moose road kills in which the meat was distributed according to the "buddy" system; it had nothing to do with need or charity as is always printed in the newspaper. And a lot of people know it.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.