...you see, many cops have an over-inflated view of their own importance. Did you ask the guy what he meant by "being in law enforcement"? Of course not, you took his word for gold 'cause he told you too.
...You can say it was an accident, and if you self-report, they can consider that, along with other pertinent facts. If you shoot a hen and don't report it, and they are watching, or perhaps the lodge you are staying at is being investigated, (they may have State investigators hunting right next to you), they cannot discern your intent. In that case, you are not only going to be fined, you will likely lose your SD hunting privileges.
do you make room for the possibility that, just like cops, just as many conservation officers have "an over-inflated view of their own importance." It seems you don't, and took the CO's "word for gold 'cause he told you too." perhaps you've known the guy your entire life and know for a fact he is the leading expert on SD game laws and regulations, i don't know.
whether you are willing to agree with me that just as many conservation officers have "an over-inflated view of their own importance, you and I both know that there are bad apples in every bunch who will abuse their position of trust and authority under color of law, so why take your chance on calling in to one of those CO's with an over-inflated view of their own importance?
further research into the statutes suggest that the penalty for either (1) killing a hen pheasant in south dakota, or (2) possessing a hen pheasant in South Dakota, is a strict liability class 2 misdemeanor, which does not require "intent" and does provide for a fine of up to $500 and 30 days in jail.
If the laws of South Dakota also provide for a penalty of the loss of hunting privileges, as you say, wouldn't it be more ethical to send in the maximum fine, report to the county jail for a 30 days stayl, and refrain from hunting for whatever time the prescribed loss of hunting privileges is?
lets be honest, there's no such thing as accidentally killing a hen, just like there's no such then as accidentally getting pregnant. if you know that the "accidental" shooting of a hen is technically a violation of south dakota's game laws, of which the shooter is absolutely guilty, why would an ethical hunter such as yourself submit to the whims of a conservation officer. isn't the "right thing to do" pay the fine, forfeit your hunting privileges, sit in jail for a month, and if SD has civil forfeiture statutes, surrender your vehicle and firearm?
are you just "minimally ethical" (willing to only pay the minimum fine for the accidental killing of a hen), or are you beyond ethical reproach and would voluntarily submit to the maximum penalty provided by the statutes?
rather than answering that question, you are probably asking yourself, "who the hell is this jack-leg on the internet questioning my ethics or morals?"
just so I am clear, i believe, and have always believed, that it is a violation of SD law to kill a hen pheasant. however, i have recently learned, based on the SD Supreme Court Opinion State v. Moschell, "one who would leave a hen pheasant in a field, in compliance with the law, cannot be said to have carelessly or thoughtlessly misspent that pheasant. Under such circumstances, a citizen would be obeying the laws of the State."
personally, i believe that the ethical thing to do is to not shoot hen pheasants, but if you make a mistake, it is ethical to obey the law, and leave it in the field.