Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...l#ixzz3tmZmnd2n
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The shooting of the second bear was intentional, but the identification could have been accidental. That would be believable if Vail reported to authorities the mistaken transgression, but that didn't happen.

If the tag is back-dated, a dishonest act, then there is no reason to believe the shooting of the second bear was an accident as they have zero credibility if that is the case.


http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/201...bear-in-alaska/

If found guilty, we will know what she stands for as well.

If all the tags were purchased and properly dated, then there is no foul.

You do understand that these are the 'Charges/Allegations' and not the Facts (until otherwise determined)?

I mean....you aren't saying because you saw it in print on the internet, it is so? Correct?

Being former LEO, probably understand it better than you possibly, in order to bring charges, you need a sworn complaint, obviously the prosecutor enough evidence to pursue/charge. Also pretty nice sitting on testimony of the film crew and film.

"The film crew on June 3 reported to Alaska Wildlife Troopers what happened." Most likely, the whole thing is on film as well.

SSS only works if you are not being filmed.
Very unfortunate situation. You know they are looking back and thinking they could have done a few things differently. Hind-site is...

Hi Brian,

The statements from the articles are as follows:

"1.Investigators said she held a single bear tag and shot a male grizzly bear, attempted to kill it with a second shot, and instead fired and killed a second bear, a sow grizzly."

"2. Troopers say Vail during filming in May shot a male grizzly, and in her haste to kill it, shot a nearby sow."

A topical reading does not suggest she intentionally shot the second bear (understanding that it was a different bear).

Another way this could have happened (again speculation) is that BOTH bears were always in view, Her second shot at the wounded boar missed and hit the nearby Sow or penetrated the Boar AND hit the Sow. At which time pretty much everyone would be aware of the issue.

IF instead of calling the authorities (realizing they had two dead bears and one tag) they ALL sought to remedy the situation through deception, then Yes…I hope they are all found guilty and any charges questioning her integrity would be valid and deserved at that point.

It will be an interesting case to follow.

Pretty sure I watched an episode of her show where she was shooting at a big bull elk, and missed it and shot a spike behind it. I don't know why but that annoyed me. Maybe it was her lack of care about it.

She is an absolute neophyte when it comes to hunting. Totally dependent on others for everything but the trigger pull/release of arrow. She misses and/or makes poor hits constantly. It is surprising to me how often they show this - my guess is they have to because most all of her game encounters probably have a FUBAR element.

Article also says both bears where spotted together, so... Where was the "surprise"?. Confusion I can sure understand, but what followed pretty much negates that IMO.

BTW, she didn't buy the tag the way I read it, it was dropped from an airplane to them, to use for the "overkill"

Anyone can bring a 'sworn complaint' am I sure you are aware. Which in and of itself is not damning and simply means a 'process' to bring charges has begun...since no arrest was made.

Hopefully, the prosecutor is honest and feels there IS enough evidence to proceed with formal charges. Lord knows...prosecutors/DA's/SA's are never wrong or out to make a name for themselves.



Which would be excellent for one side or the other. However, its worth is likely to involve only the documentation of the actual event (shots on the bears). I would not expect it to include anything to do with the alleged 'cover up' unless the actors were filmed without their knowledge. Who knows?

Should be interesting to see how it plays out. Meanwhile, I will reserve judgement and hope that others would too.

^^^^^ Correct (as written) both bears were spotted together, it was always known there were two bears. The boar was selected and shot. It is what happened after that...that is somewhat unclear, other than the Sow was also somehow shot.



No claim is made that 'She' bought the tag, it would have impossible for her to do so in that time frame, the story relates that one of the guides contacted the other (who presumably bought the tag) and air-dropped it.
So at the very least...'someone' understood the need for the second tag. But that doesn't mean Ms. Vail was aware that the action was technically illegal.

No claim is made that 'She' bought the tag, it would have impossible for her to do so in that time frame, the story relates that one of the guides contacted the other (who presumably bought the tag) and air-dropped it.
So at the very least...'someone' understood the need for the second tag. But that doesn't mean Ms. Vail was aware that the action was technically illegal. [/quote]

That is correct, it was in relation to what Scalebuster said in his post. And I am sure "Miss Vail" at least became suspicious, when she falsified the form data.........

Shes a looker

LOL, there is no difference between "technically illegal" and just plain old "illegal."

So, YES, at least someone understood the need for the second tag to illegally cover-up the transgression.

It is Vail's responsibility to know the hunting laws where she is hunting. If she got a license to hunt, pulled the trigger, then she should have understood the law, plain and simple, regardless of her producers, handlers, and guides. So it would not really matter that she may not have bothered to learn and understand the law before hunting as she would still be accountable for it. She had to understand that she was putting a wrong date on the hunting tag. NOWHERE she would have hunted previously would that have been considered legal or appropriate.

Her lawyer called the infractions committed, "errors in judgment." I like that. It implies that she knew or thought the actions might be wrong and went ahead and did it anyway.



Because SHE didn't. It was done by her film crew.


https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/adventure-show-star-charged-alaska-hunting-violations-001113733.html


https://www.adn.com/article/20151207/tro...laska-bear-kill

I bet she has a new film crew.

Who produces that show anyway?

Nevermind, Google shows Franchi. Film crew works for them, not her and wouldn't surprise me if it was ran through management before they told their story.

Yes, of course it is an expression...meant to convey that extenuating circumstance or less than certain aspects of a situation might leave it on the cusp. In strict legal form...there is only legal or illegal, whereas 'lawful' and 'unlawful' are challenged every day in the courts. You'll excuse my choice of words?




Yes. I have stated that more than once. In no way do I excuse her or anyone else from the responsibility to know the law. She is accountable for any infractions she committed. This is where the 'letter of the law' comes into play. What I am asking folks to consider is: What was her INTENT in each phase of this unfortunate circumstance? The reason that matters...is NOT because it necessarily applies to the law, but rather to preserve a person's reputation and avoid the wholesale slaughter of their character, owing to a mistake.



Disagree. IF she put the date of the kill on the tag, she did what ALL tags ask for. The true infraction...was not having the tag before the kill. For all we know...the kill, the tag purchase and the filling of the date all occurred on the same day. We don't have details to substantiate it one way or the other. But one thing IS clear, there were NOT two tags in possession at the time of the unintended kill, so by default an illegal act occurred, though it might have been excused if reported immediately (if that were even possible).



Legal and 'appropriate' would be two different things. If you went deer hunting tomorrow, shot a buck and on your way to retrieve it...you suffered a heart attack. Your hunting buddy finds you and rushes you to the hospital. The deer is retrieved the next morning and your tag put upon it. Game Warden shows up at the hospital and cites you for not tagging the deer immediately (as required). Letter of the law says that LEGALLY speaking...you were wrong. Even though the APPROPRIATE thing was done (an attempt to satisfy the law as much as was possible). Doesn't absolve you of the infraction, but I expect you'd like the courts to consider the circumstances, yes?



'Lawyer Speak' nothing else. You know that. He did not attribute that to Ms. Vail anyway, only stated that 'afterward'..."errors in judgment" were made. Purposely, very broad.




Here is the excerpt from what was written:

"We have strict policies and procedures in place that require all of our talent and producers to abide by all hunting regulations," he said. "In June, Theresa Vail and the 'Limitless' production team alerted the authorities of the situation."

If this is true, then yes SHE did.

I hope you don't fall off, it might hurt being so high up. Lol.

You know, this is not a hard scenario to read. Is she your niece or something flintknapper?

Truly sad how those that are have been more fortunate in life choose to over indulge and often at times even begin to take on an entitlement mentality.

Great points to consider flintknapper.

If I ever need legal representation I will pm you.

Funny part is the bringing up of all she keeps doing wrong...They obviously keep watching the show

Cold day in Hell before I reduce myself to sitting in the house watching Hunting Shows

You got that right RAB, I mostly watch them for a bit of diversion from reality and subjection to mass hunting marketing, LOL...

Someone post a pic I don't know who she is.

Try Google. All the pics you would ever want to see.