The state is providing his defense because he was acting on behalf of the state when he reported the alleged turtle. He was acting as an unpaid volunteer, whose assignment it was to go out and find and count endangered species.
What kind of person voluntarily goes out to work for the state tracking turtles through the woods for no pay? An environmentalist, that's who! So you have people who have a certain point of view acting on behalf of the state without supervision, who have the authority to take land from landowners on a whim. This is what the state is defending.
"He said he released the turtle."
So you're right: No turtle, no identification by qualified biologists, no testing to determine if the putative turtle had actually traversed Mr. Maier's land.
...you have people who have a certain point of view acting on behalf of the state without supervision...
Yes, and since when does the state fund the defense of a self-appointed "volunteer" for the state?!
If a "volunteer" turns in his neighbor for, say, child abuse; and then the allegation begins to look false and maliciously motivated, is that volunteer's defense going to be paid by the taxpayers when he is sued for defamation by the accused? I doubt it.