About one year ago, we published a story detailing the hunt for an absolutely giant typical whitetail buck that had been killed in Ohio. According to CJ Alexander, 28, he had been hunting his sister’s small property when he heard a loud buck grunt. Not long after, a massive deer — that he’d never seen before — walked to within seven yards of his stand.
As the story goes, Alexander made a bad shot but was able to recover the deer with the help of a buddy the next day. The deer was a true giant, and a member of Ohio’s Buckeye Big Buck club went on to score the rack at 206 7 / 8 inches, which would have made it the biggest typical buck ever taken in Ohio and one of the biggest typical bucks ever taken by a hunter.
But over the weeks and months of OL coverage that followed, Alexander’s initial story began to unravel. As documents from the poaching investigation would show, Alexander had, in fact, illegally shot the deer on private land that he had trespassed on. And it’s clear his motivation for shooting the deer was fame and fortune. You can read the details of how he poached the deer here. You can read about how he pleaded guilty to 14 charges here, and you can read about how he was sentenced to 90 days of jail time and fined $43,000. Listen to the full backstory of the CJ Alexander buck here.
But now that the case is closed and the story is told, I think it’s worth reflecting on what should be learned from this crime and how it was covered in hunting media. Because sadly, the CJ Alexander buck won’t be the last high-profile poaching case we cover.
Hunting Podcasts and Youtube Can Be Unreliable
Shortly after the Alexander buck story blew up online, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources announced that it had confiscated the buck and opened an investigation into the hunt.
A short press release from the agency stated: “An investigation was launched by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources after information was provided alleging that Alexander failed to obtain the lawfully required written permission prior to hunting on private property. While the investigation continues, Ohio wildlife officers have seized the antlers, cape, and hunting equipment associated with the alleged unlawful taking of the deer.”
But no charges had been filed against Alexander — yet. Usually, when folks are under investigation, they go quiet (because their lawyers tell them to). However, Alexander went on podcasts and took to social media to claim his innocence and to accuse the Ohio DNR of corruption. A podcast called Hunter’s Advantage did a lengthy interview with Alexander after the investigation was opened and gained 122,000 views on YouTube.
During that podcast, Alexander spun his story as the tale of a blue-collar hunter up against a corrupt legal and political system. He worked in ideas about how hunting is increasingly easy for the rich and more difficult for the working man.
His message hit home as many commenters showed empathy and support for him.
“I wish people could just be happy for other people,” one commenter wrote. “I blame the hunting industry as a whole for the jealousy. The average hunter is being priced out. If you’re not a (sponsored pro hunter) that shoots a monster like this buck, … you don’t get a fair shake. And I completely agree that politics in hunting is ruining hunting. I hope everything works out for this young man.”
There was even a GoFundMe page set up to help pay for Alexander’s legal fees. A lot of the support within the hunting community was generated by podcast content, social media comments, and hunting forum threads that told a false narrative about Alexander being innocent.
Much of the podcast world today is framed around the idea of just having open conversations. The premise is that more ideas and perspectives (even potentially inaccurate ones) will lead us all to a greater understanding. After all, you don’t have to believe what the podcast guest says.
This is a fine framework for conversations about deer hunting tactics or habitat management philosophies, but it is not ideal for criminal investigations. When a suspect in a crime is given a platform to tell their full story before the investigating agency presents its facts, well, we as a hunting community are bound to hear false narratives. And many folks will end up believing those false narratives.
In most hunting podcasts, there is no fact-checking or journalistic standards to uphold. And, for the most part, there are no repercussions for publishing incorrect information.
Investigations Can Take a Long Time
Alexander’s agency corruption narrative took hold, partly because it took months before he was charged. The Ohio DNR confiscated the rack and some of his gear and then went quiet.
Alexander leaned into the fact that he was not charged, saying it was proof that investigators had nothing on him. Meanwhile, all sorts of conspiracy theories swirled around the internet.
But the reality is that poaching investigations can take a long time to unfold. We often cover poaching cases a year or more after the crime was committed. “The wheels of justice turn slowly,” as the ancient Greeks once said.
It’s just that in this case, there was so much attention on the buck and on Alexander that the seemingly slow investigative and charging process felt suspicious, even though it was pretty standard compared to other investigations we’ve covered.
The other reason the whole thing smelt fishy to some readers was that the Ohio DNR didn’t say much after the initial press release about the confiscation. Many readers wondered, if they had real proof of poaching, wouldn’t they say more?
The answer is no. They wouldn’t and won’t. It’s standard operating procedure for investigators and prosecutors not to comment during an open investigation.
It’s incredibly rare for them to make comments until the case is over. After all, their job is not to control public opinion, but to obtain a conviction or guilty plea.
The Agency Is Usually Not Corrupt
Journalists love nothing more than a story exposing government corruption. I’m not sure if this instinct gets infused during J School or if the field of journalism simply attracts the kind of people who want to take down The Man (or, in this case, the DNR). But the point is, if we feel like we have a legitimate story about a wildlife agency abusing its power, we’re going to run with it.
But these stories are rare, because in the vast majority of cases, wildlife agencies are not corrupt. In my experience, most agencies are staffed by people who really do love fish and wildlife, and many of them are hunters and anglers. Most game wardens are good. Most biologists want more habitat and game on the landscape, just like we do. Plus, much of the investigative process becomes public information at some point during or after the case.
And yet, many hunters in every state I’ve visited think that their department of natural resources is the worst. So when Alexander started making allegations of DNR corruption, a lot of folks were all too willing to believe him.
The fact is that most wildlife agencies are anything but perfect. They are often underfunded, too slow to implement changes, and are usually not the best at communicating with the hunting public. But that’s far different from framing a young man for poaching a world-class deer.
I hope the hunting community can remember that for the next big controversy.
The Best Deals on Outdoor Gear Gifts
Read the full article here
