Go back and read the previous posts, these questions were answered. Yes the buck was reported missing several weeks before it was shot and many people including the owner were trying to get it back. Kerry didn't just skip off to Canada ignoring the buck; he had been working hard along with several others for several weeks to get the buck back. Pretty much everyone around this area knew of the buck and where it was hanging out. As far as I know the buck had never been seen on the nearest public ground. The landower said that Craig had been scoping out his property for days, constantly driving by. Then it just happens that Craig knew the landowner that has been protecting the buck was going to be out of town for a couple days. And that's when he shoots the tame buck, supposedly on public land. You can see why there are rumors about how this actually happened. There is more to this story than what has been reported in the paper, and I am not going to spread the rumors in a public forum. I'm just saying that those of you who seem to be so eager to jump to Craig's defense might want to reconsider, given that you have a very small amount of information.
The nagging question remains... even if you shot the buck legally on public ground, (which is up for debate and most people are convinced that is not how it happened) once you saw the tag in the ear and you realized you had shot Kerry's buck, why wouldn't you just give it back when he asked for it? Why would you want a tame, bottle-fed, pet buck with a tag in its ear on your wall? That's the real question here.