There won't be any hunting trips for Robert Candow this fall.

In April, Candow was convicted by territorial court Judge John Faulkner on two counts of breaking the Wildlife Act.

In addition to a total of $6,500 in fines, Candow was prohibited from hunting for two years and must complete the Hunter's Education and Ethics course before he applies for any licences or permits under the Wildlife Act.

The decision, just recently published, notes that last October, Candow was on a hunting trip with two friends, both of whom successfully shot a moose.

The following day, Candow was watching two moose, one a large trophy-sized animal.

While Candow wanted the larger animal, it was the smaller one which came into range and was shot.

He and his friends gutted the moose but weren't able to get it back to camp that day, reads the decision. So the next day, Candow went back to the site to deal with the dead moose.

While he was there, the larger moose came back and was in range for a shot.

That's when Candow remembered he had his wife's moose tag on him.

'He decided that, with the aid of the second tag, he could as he later said in his statement to the investigating officer beat the system,' ' Faulkner noted.

He then shot the second moose and took his tag off the smaller animal, placed his tag on the large animal and put his wife's tag on the smaller moose.

'Mr. Candow's hunting companions were very upset with what Mr. Candow had done and they refused to help Mr. Candow deal with the second, illegally-shot moose and further refused to help him with the smaller moose, since it now had a fraudulent tag attached to it,' reads the decision.

'To deal with the latter problem, Mr. Candow switched the tags again and was able to transport the smaller moose home.'

He later got another man, who didn't know what happened, to help him get the larger moose back home, where he switched the tags again.

When the conservation officers came to question him about it, he told them his wife had shot one of the moose, but he was told the story was untenable. He then admitted to what happened.

'In his submission (defence counsel) Mr. (Keith) Parkkari claimed that Mr. Candow was at least partly moved to shoot the second moose because he feared that the meat from the first moose had spoiled; secondly, through a desire to provide meat for others,' the judge stated.

'I accept neither of these assertions, which suffer from the twin defects of not being given in evidence and being entirely at odds with Mr. Candow's statement to the authorities.'

Candow pleaded guilty to the two charges of killing a greater number of moose than permitted and using a punched or altered moose seal to provide false information. He argued that because the two charges come out of one event, he should have only been convicted of one count.

Again, the judge disagreed with the defence.

'The first charge relates the killing of the trophy moose and nothing but,' Faulkner wrote.

' The second charge relates to Mr. Candow's attempt to cover up what he had done by using his wife's tag, which is an entirely separate, though admittedly, not entirely unrelated action.

'Thus, in my view, it is appropriate to enter convictions on both counts and I do so.'

Faulkner went on to state there are numerous special considerations to be made for sentencing in wildlife convictions in the territory.

In the Yukon, wild animals are a valuable resource and the temptation to break some of the regulations can be greater because the territory is large and remote, which makes it difficult to oversee wildlife laws, the judge stated.

In 2002, the legislature also increased the range of fines to be imposed under the Act to a maximum of $50,000 and/or a year in jail for first-time offenders.

'This is an indication of the seriousness with which wildlife offences are viewed within this territory,' Faulkner wrote in his decision.

Another consideration for the judge was that there was a conscious decision to act illegally with the belief he could get away with it.

Faulkner cited case law as well in considering the sentence as well as Candow's circumstances.

He pointed to Candow's guilty pleas, that he has no criminal record of any kind and though he is steadily employed, he has relatively modest means.

The judge also noted that as Parkkari described, Candow has suffered considerable stress and embarrassment from the charges.

'At the same time, one must not lose sight of the fact that this was a deliberate act, albeit one quickly decided on.

'I also take into account that in using his wife's tag, he risked involving his wife in this scheme,' Faulkner wrote.

The friends he went hunting with were also placed in a difficult situation, but fortunately they acted principled throughout the matter, the judge noted.

On the first count, Candow was fined $5,000 while on the second he was fined $1,500 with half of each fine to be paid to the Conservation Fund established under the Wildlife Act.

He was given nine months to pay the $5,000 and a year to pay the $1,500.

The moose was also forfeited and hunting ban put into effect.