[butcherboy]

hi, my new girlfriends father and brothers all hunt the evening before opening day, both bow and rifle season.

2 of my uncles start hunting deer sept.16 in NY.

i always wait until opening day.

i never go out with these people to hunt, but was wondering if any fellow THR members have family that do things like this and justify saying that there fathers did it and it tradition.

i cant be the only one.

[Mike1234567]

It's called cheating and I'm sure a ton of people do it. But, that's just MHO and I'm cynical. ;)

[alsaqr]

Yep, its called poaching deer out of season and its illegal.

[SlamFire1]

The family that poaches together goes to jail together.

Its tradition!

[Loosedhorse]

"Yeah, we been hunting before season opens, since before there even was a season."

:D

[butcherboy]

i know its poaching and illegal. on that note though... does anyone have family/friends that hunt legally ( licenses, season dates) but only use one hunting implement during all 3 seasons. ie: they use a rifle for bow-rifle-muzzle loader seasons.

just curious.

[spclpatrolgroup]

No one in my family that I know of poaches deer. Or illeagally hunts them out of season, like using a rifle during bow season. We are blessed with being an accurate enough shot with said methods thus have no reason to cheat.

[jimmyraythomason]

My dad and grand dad were sticklers for following game laws to the letter. They passed that ethic down to me and I passed it along to my daughters. As my dad said; "The game warden is NOT your friend. Don't give him any reason to get to know YOU!".

[sixgunner455]

I know people who use archery during all seasons, but that's legal where they are.

Myself, I may or may not agree with all of the regulations, but I don't need to risk paying fines or losing my equipment or hunting rights or going to jail just because I don't think the regs are right.

Much better to get involved and get things changed legally than to flaunt the law and get punished for it.

[Sky]

Much better to get involved and get things changed legally than to flaunt the law and get punished for it.

The family that poaches together goes to jail together.

AMEN!

[butcherboy]

i cant say i agree with the laws, but i do follow them. i hoped i wasn't the only one who had friends and family that do go against the grain so to speak.

i do have an old friend of mine ( hes 96 ) and an old farmer who used to hunt deer all year as a kid to feed his family. they had the typical farm family 7+kids and farmhands and relatives that lived with them. so they used the deer to feed the family. i have no problem with that ethically but i dont see there being a need for such behavior at the moment since there are other options available.

hows the highroad crowd weigh in on this?

[jimmyraythomason]

I know people who use archery during all seasons, but that's legal where they are.
Same here. I know several,archery only,deer hunters who wouldn't even think of picking up a rifle.

[CoRoMo]

i cant be the only one.
Nope you are not.

I have family members that have had a hard time following the hunting regs and laws. I've worked at them to get them to stop the nonsense and they've come around. It was truly idiotic IMO. They would put together plans to shoot the wrong animal and smuggle it out of the woods, how to lie to the warden, party hunting, etc. I couldn't stand it and never wanted to hunt with them at all. Eventually they began to see that the stakes of getting caught were more important than the odds.

[rodensouth]

My dad as a youngster engaged in poaching with his cousins and grandpa. Always does for the freezer.

He instilled in me the importance of ethics, and the ramifications of getting caught.

[Mike1234567]

My dad as a youngster engaged in poaching with his cousins and grandpa. Always does for the freezer.

He instilled in me the importance of ethics, and the ramifications of getting caught.

Huh??

[spclpatrolgroup]

One law that peeves me is not being able to use any optic on my muzzle loader, being far sighted I have a harder time with iron sights than others. However I still use the iron sights, and have written several letters to my state representitives on the subject. But unless the law changes, I will have to wear my glasses afield durign ML season.

[buck460XVR]

Poaching as a tradition? Wow...what dirtballs. What else do they do for fun, beat their wives? If they consider poaching deer outta season, and the use of illegal tactics and weapons as normal, I assume they have the same disregard for personal property and trespassing. I wouldn't even want them over to my house for supper for fear they'd rob me blind. Butcherboy....you need to stay far away from these people. You need to keep your kids and any other impressionable folks far from these idiots. They are criminals......pure and simple.

[csa77]

they guy who owns property next to us shoots turkey year round. there are no shortage of turkey there,they are every where around our property. I dont mind, its his land he can do what he wants.

Id even probably do the same if I lived on my property like he does, but for me its a cross 3 state drive.

[Sky]

Difference between a real need and just for some sneaky fun. Law does not always weigh the needs of the one against the rules of the many.

I have never poached but have never needed a game animal to feed my family due to economical considerations.

If you were hungry and that was the only option then your opinion might change about right and wrong. Seems like there was a rumor of Robin Hood and others poaching dear on the King's land....Did not turn out very well for all parties concerned.....Do not think this is the reason for several misdeeds in this post.

[oneounceload]

they use a rifle for bow-rifle-muzzle loader seasons.

Where i lived, that will get your vehicle confiscated, your weapons confiscated, a lifetime ban on hunting for all involved, loss of game already taken, a fine and prison time (not jail, prison)

Personally, I don't think that is harsh enough - the poacher should be hung

If you were hungry and that was the only option then your opinion might change about right and wrong.

Oh BS - there are more government handouts these days than ever before - if you are that damn lazy to go to the welfare office, then starve

[jhnrckr]

i lease some land from a guy that owns millions and millions of dollars in land. He told me it is his land and he will hunt what he wants when he wants. The first time I was on the land I watched a neighbor poach a deer with a shotgun on a four wheeler during archery season. I caught a guy walking around with a dog and a rifle during bow season and he said he was hunting coyotes and got lost. Needless to say I was surrounded by poachers and figured the whole damn county was full of poachers and I still do OK hunting that 80 acres every year. I think poaching is more common than we think. Me personally I have no interest in shooting anything out of season. I dont even want to shoot a deer after it is dark.

[Mike1234567]

RE "hungry family", "my land my right", etc...

The OP stated those folks hunted precisely one day before open season. This is clearly to get a leg up on everyone else regardless of the law.

[caribou]

Are you sure they are engauged in Hunting and not camping out the day beforethe start of the Season?

Happens alot.......and is quite legal.......

[Tim the student]

My granddad told me he used to poach deer on occasion with some young men during the depression to help feed the neighborhood.

Other than that, nope, I've never heard of anyone in my family doing anything illegal, nor have I witnessed anything myself. I would say that the guys in my family that hunt or fish are pretty zealous in ensuring they follow regulations, and that others with them, or just near them do the same.

[buck460XVR]

Where i lived, that will get your vehicle confiscated, your weapons confiscated, a lifetime ban on hunting for all involved, loss of game already taken, a fine and prison time (not jail, prison)

Problem is these same folks don't lose their hunting rights....not in their eyes. They just lose the right to hunt legally. And since violatin' is part of who they are, and seasons and bag limits mean nuttin' to them, not bein' able to buy a license just saves them beer money.





Oh BS - there are more government handouts these days than ever before - if you are that damn lazy to go to the welfare office, then starve

Oh, but it's their PRIDE. They're too damn proud to take a legal and legitimate helping hand and accept free food that may actually be nutritious to their hungry family. It's much more respectable and manly to go kill something illegally. If one can trespass on the neighbors land while doin' it, so much for the better.

Every criminal has an excuse. Very seldom is it a matter of life and death. In most cases the crime, whether it's hunting related or not, is a matter of convenience for someone too lazy to obtain it the right way.

[Mike1234567]

I have a neighbor who asked another neighbor if he could shoot a deer from his property to the other's. We all live on 1 to 4 acres and the shooter would be aiming directly at the the other's home only a couple hundred yards away!!

Some people are crazy AND stupid AND selfish AND careless AND...

[jimmyraythomason]

Very seldom is it a matter of life and death.Today this is true. It hasn't been too many generations ago that it was kill what you could find WHEN you can find it or starve. All of which has nothing to do with what the OP is talking about.

[Carl N. Brown]

...Robin Hood and others poaching dear on the King's land....
Yeah, I've read those stories about Maid Marian and Robin Hood.

[cottswald]

Robin Hood! Ain't he the guy that gave other peoples money (not his own) to the poor. Sounds like a politician!

[Bobson]

they use a rifle for bow-rifle-muzzle loader seasons. Where i lived, that will get your vehicle confiscated, your weapons confiscated, a lifetime ban on hunting for all involved, loss of game already taken, a fine and prison time (not jail, prison)

Personally, I don't think that is harsh enough - the poacher should be hung
What?

I'm totally against poaching, don't get me wrong. But we're talking about animals here, not people. Capital punishment for killing an animal in a humane way? I can see it for people who go out and torture animals to death for fun, but for hunting out of season? You gotta be freakin kidding me.

Even prison is totally blowing the situation out of proportion. Putting people who hunt out of season in prison with murderers and child-rapists, and you think that isn't enough?

[Art Eatman]

Bobson, that's known as "Keyboard Kommando-itis, and is best ignored. That's sometimes difficult...

[T Bran]

Where I live you can legally shoot food year round ( HOGS ) so if you are hungry there is no excuse for breaking the law.
If you are doing it for the thrill or to get a leg up on the competition you deserve to lose your right to hunt.
Yes my father and countless other members of my extended family hunted year round it is how they survived and viewed as more of a chore than a sport. In this day and age it is no longer necessary to either poach or grow your food in a garden. I hear a lot of people whining about people wanting handouts but at least they no longer need to risk arrest to feed the family.
I have no children but have taught several youngsters to hunt and fish you can bet that they respect and follow the laws. I will not tolerate poachers on my land or anywhere else. If you really must advance or extend your season kill all the hogs you want.

[jimmyraythomason]

Where I live you can legally shoot food year round ( HOGS ) so if you are hungry there is no excuse for breaking the law.
Contrary to popular belief,hogs are not everywhere. There are many states that are overrun with the beasts but I have to travel over 100 miles just for the unlikely chance to find even one. "Just kill a hog if you're hungry" doesn't work if you don't have any.

[HGUNHNTR]

they guy who owns property next to us shoots turkey year round. there are no shortage of turkey there,they are every where around our property. I dont mind, its his land he can do what he wants.

Id even probably do the same if I lived on my property like he does, but for me its a cross 3 state drive.--Geez, whats the matter with people. Just because the animals live on his property doesn't give him the right to break the law. That type of thinking is the problem. If you are that damned hungry sell the guns and buy food.

[Mike1234567]

^^^ Better yet, hunt when it's legal, bag your limits and freeze the meat in proper vacuum bags.

[buck460XVR]

they guy who owns property next to us shoots turkey year round. there are no shortage of turkey there,they are every where around our property, I dont mind

--Geez, whats the matter with people. Just because the animals live on his property doesn't give him the right to break the law. That type of thinking is the problem.

+1.


I dont mind, its his land he can do what he wants.




I assume then you would also condone him illegally dumping toxic waste next to your property line since it's his land and he can do what he wants? What about him choosing not to pay property taxes? Remember, it's his land and you don't mind.

As HGUNHNTR pointed out, owning a piece of property does not give you the right to poach. If the state says you control the animals on your property so be it. But if the state says you must follow the rules like everyone else and if you don't, you are just as big a dirtball as any other violator. It always amazes me the amount of folks here on "The High Road" that condone breaking the law. You wanna violate or support those that do, fine, just do us law abiding folks a favor and keep it to yourselves. Otherwise you make us all look like a bunch of "Bubbas".

[oneounceload]

Bobson, that's known as "Keyboard Kommando-itis, and is best ignored. That's sometimes difficult...

BS -I feel that strongly about poaching - poachers are no different than other who rape this country in one form or another and they SHOULD be hung

If YOU Art, as a Moderator, cannot strongly add your voice to enforce the laws, especially as mods here silence things, what is left? Poaching is WRONG - it is killing illegally, as such, the person doing such should lose it all - or you do nothing but support PETA, Brady and all of their ilk

[HKGuns]

Poaching is what white trash do to entertain themselves. It is morally and legally objectionable and should be punished severely. The bonus is that they give all hunters and gun owners a bad reputation. You wonder why the liberal left is successful in portraying all law abiding gun owners as armed bumpkins? -Yep you got it, because of crap like this that goes on all over the place.

Hanging them? Come on oneounce, sure it is extremely objectionable behavior, but hanging? Not going to go there with you bud, but in general we agree on our measure of distaste.

No, no-one in my family poaches out of season as "tradition".

[oneounceload]

You'll only need to hang ONE, that will be enough to get the measure across - if you think it too harsh, then confiscate EVERYTHING - it is amazing how things stop when the penalty is severe enough

We have a serious crime issue in this country - why? because the penalties are not severe enough or even enforced - either enforce the laws and severely, or don't bother

Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves with gun owners - because as you say - the BS actions of some white trash slobs make every other one of look like them

[Danb1215]

If YOU Art, as a Moderator, cannot strongly add your voice to enforce the laws, especially as mods here silence things, what is left? Poaching is WRONG - it is killing illegally, as such, the person doing such should lose it all - or you do nothing but support PETA, Brady and all of their ilk

So if you don't believe someone should be killed for taking a game animal 12 hours ahead of an arbitrary date set by the government than you are automatically an animal rights activist, and an anti-gun activist? Gotcha.

[courtgreene]

@oneounceload, if hunting out of season fuels liberal fires, imagine what a "hang them all" knee jerk reaction tells them about gun owners. I'd say it would make them want to fight harder to remove weapons from people such as us. I am STRONGLY against poaching. But I'm just as strongly against spewing crap that suggests human life is worth less than ANYONE's ideology, even if I agree with the basic idea. Stiff and enforced fines work wonders, as some have said.
All that said, I had an interesting conversation with a game warden when I called to complain about all the poaching that was ruining bow season for the law abiding hunters in my area a few years ago. (gun shots get deer so shy they won't even approach bow range in anything similar to a clear enough area for a shot, and poachers were firing constantly all around me) He said, essentially, that there were so many poachers and so few officers, that they could not do anything about it. He told me, quite frankly, that my best option was to get my gun and put some meat in the freezer and he wouldn't be visiting my area. I didn't, but perhaps the problem is enforcement and the resources to improve it.
OP, I don't have family with those types of traditions, but I know plenty of people who assume all deer seasons were created equally, manner of taking is just a suggestion to them.

[wyocarp]

Wow! From this thread I've learned a lot. I've learned that many on here have no problem killing other humans for an infraction of a day. I think we maybe ought to kill people for traffic infractions as well.
I've learned that poeple no longer need to eat meat they could harvest for themselves. Everyone is able to buy all the food they need. (Personally) If someone is eating it, I think that is good enough, most of laws are for our goverment to make more money anyways, it isn't a moral issue.
I've learned that liberals are that way because not everyone agrees on what the government arbitrarily says is wrong.

Aren't there bigger hills to die on? Someone shooting a deer to eat is a crime equal to rape, child molestation, child pornography? Are you serious?

[wlewisiii]

It's poaching and if I had proof, I'd turn them in.

I knew a guy once who, as a 14 year old, fed his family with poached deer. I helped him. Your family members? I'd turn their asses in instantly and would laugh my ass off when the judge passed sentence.

[shiftyer1]

I still can't understand the "go get welfare instead of doing for yourself comments." These are the same people who complian about the welfare mentality. I have been in that postion and I will be the first to tell you that if my family is down and out, I WILL MAKE MEAT!!!! You go get your welfare!

Now if your family is poaching just for fun.....well I don't think thats right.

[BambiB]

The whole issue of poaching versus hunting when you want to, is, in my view, a question of how much freedom/authority you've ceded to the state and what the impact is on the common resources. There are good reasons for hunting seasons/regulations, mostly to do with preservation of game stocks. For some game, in some areas, this makes very good sense. In others, to quote Mr. Brumble, "... the law is a ass."

There are states where the number of deer is only limited by starvation. That is, they are so plentiful, they overwhelm the vegetation needed to sustain them. I've read that nation-wide, there are 1.1 MILLION deer-vehicle collisions a year, and that there are more deer in America now than when Christopher Columbus set foot on the continent. It's easy to understand why. We've eliminated most of the predators. Wolves no longer keep deer populations in check. With sufficient food, deer populations can reportedly double every two to three years, so what top predator is going to do the job? Chronic "wasting disease" in deer has been linked to the hyper-dense deer populations that have arisen in the past 50 years. Deer dying of disease is somehow an improvement over humans culling the herd for food?

With that in mind, is the state acting to preserve a communal resource? Or enforcing antiquated tickey-tack laws as a source of bedevilment, oppression and revenue? Deer in America today are so numerous that they are beginning to have an adverse ecological effect on the forests. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/15/137192604/what-does-more-deer-mean-for-forests

The question of "legal" versus "illegal" is quite different and separate from "moral" versus "immoral"... or even "right" versus "wrong".

Subsistence hunting of deer shouldn't even be regulated given the current deer stocks. The same can be said of some migratory birds. Habitat deprivation is a much bigger impact on most bird populations than hunting. (Perhaps THAT should be regulated better?)

In the early 1900s, it was the commercial hunting that depleted deer, ducks and geese. Ducks, for example, were hunted with machine guns and punt guns. A single shot might take out as many as 50 ducks on the water! Facing that sort of pressure, it's not surprising that many species declined.

But today, in an era where the number of hunters is declining, game stocks are breeding themselves to the point of overwhelming food supplies and diseases arise as a proximate result of gross overpopulation, many game laws are simply out-of-date and counter-productive. In short, the state hasn't kept up with the times, and the hunting season laws are not only failing in their purpose - they are leading to massive destruction - of habitat and eventually through starvation and disease, the herds they are meant to protect.

It's clear from the posts here that a lot of you are totally ignorant of the facts - so do some checking.

In law, you have the concepts of "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum", that is, a thing that is inherently wrong (like raping a 2-year-old) versus a thing that is only wrong because it's "prohibited" (like hunting on a Friday when the season doesn't open until Saturday). In general, society approves of laws regarding the former, while laws that fall into the second category must be viewed with a jaundiced eye unless you are one of the stupid yuks who doesn't value freedom and who thinks the state can do no wrong.

As for the "legal and legitimate helping hand and ... free food" - you've got your brain wired sideways. That "free food" is paid for with MY TAX MONEY. While you condemn self-help through procurement of a plentiful natural resource, you seem to applaud government-sponsored theft of my earnings.

You think hunting early is less moral than theft?

As for nutrition, you don't get much better than venison. Its lower fat content is actually better for you than that fatty hamburger you eat from that hormone-saturated cow.

As for what's criminal - I think the government confiscating my income by threat of force to hand it off to someone else in the form of "free food" is far more pernicious than a person providing for themselves by hunting an overstocked game resource. But that approach doesn't satisfy the government's need to make us reliant on the government - good little slaves, beholding to their every asinine law.

So what's REALLY the "right way"?

Suffice to say, if government is the answer, it's likely a very stupid question. I think the "right way" is the way that preserves the communal resource with the least possible action of government... one that doesn't involve government theft from one person to benefit another.

[shiftyer1]

^^^^^^^what he said!!!!!!

[Lloyd Smale]

stuff like that used to go on at our camp all the time. What stopped it was my brother in law and me. We got everyone at camp together and said if it happened again we were both done with the camp. i grew up in a violating household. My dad shot deer to put meat on the table as at that time we had 6 kids and little money. Not one guy that hunts our camp is out of work or doesnt have an income high enough that they cant afford food for there family and i just wont put up with it any more. No more shooting before season and no more tagging deer with other peoples tags or having wifes and kids buy tags just to shoot more deer. I told them i do legal crop damage shooting before season and if its venison they want id give them a deer. Funny thing is none of the ones that violated has ever asked me for a deer. Bottom line is they just wanted to shoot them. What put me over the edge with it was a nephew who shot a deer and tagged it with his younger brothers tag so he could keep hunting and I found out he rode around with it in his truck for two weeks to show it off and it spoiled!!!!

[Sav .250]

Nothing like having "bandits" in the family.

[Art Eatman]

There is a simple and good reason for anti-poaching laws. The system is set up in order that there be an unending supply of surplus game to harvest, based on "normal" or "average" weather conditions over a long period of time, as well as legal hunter-take.

Poaching, then, is basically theft from other hunters, in that their opportunity to take animals in a legal manner is reduced.

As near as I can tell from reading, there is much more poaching for commercial sale than for household need. Killing bears for glands and paws, for example, for sale into Asia. I've read of court cases in Texas where there were some 40 deer-kills by a poaching group, with the meat sold--and it was not their first and only effort. And there have been numerous cases of poaching in national parks, particularly for elk.

The punishment of taking all the equipment used in poaching--guns, vehicles, etc.--seems to be helpful in reducing poaching, along with more serious fines and other restrictions. Jail time and loss of future hunting rights also help.

But the idea of killing a poacher has no place in any sort of rational system as devised by adults.

[oneounceload]

But the idea of killing a poacher has no place in any sort of rational system as devised by adults.


Your opinion, and you are entitled to it

Horse stealing, cattle resulting were/are hanging offenses - basically poaching of private property

Sorry folks, you can justify illegal actions in your minds, this is one I will stand by my view

[Mike1234567]

I live in a rural south Texas area. I was disappointed to see so few deer here because, usually, there are far more in areas like this. I've been here a little longer than three months and was hearing gun shots nearly every evening and early morning. Now I see no deer at all... and am not hearing much gunfire. Adding 2+2 I'm guessing people have hunted them into near non-existence. If so, I find it difficult to believe whoever these people are can eat that much. This leads me to suspect they're only kill for "fun" and leaving the carcasses to waste.

But... I'm just speculating.

ETA: Per post #49; Yeah, maybe the scumbags are selling the meat. Better than letting the carcasses rot but a darned lousy thing to do none-the-less.

[Mike1234567]

Your opinion, and you are entitled to it

Horse stealing, cattle resulting were/are hanging offenses - basically poaching of private property

Sorry folks, you can justify illegal actions in your minds, this is one I will stand by my view
oneounceload... You really believe what you just wrote???

[BambiB]

Your opinion, and you are entitled to it

Horse stealing, cattle resulting were/are hanging offenses - basically poaching of private property

Sorry folks, you can justify illegal actions in your minds, this is one I will stand by my view

Do you also stand by slavery?

Remember, it was once the law of the land that slavery was legal.

That's a rather extreme example, but how about the law in Nebraska that forbids driving a red vehicle? (Only emergency vehicles can be red. Last I checked, still on the books - but widely ignored because, like deer poaching laws, it makes no sense!) For stupid laws, ********** is probably king. There's a law on the books saying one is forbidden from having sex with a porcupine. (I think that's its own punishment.) Chico has a law that forbids the possession of nuclear weapons in town. There's a fine and everything.

Point is, lots of laws start out with good intentions, or are written by idiots. Only an idiot (or a communist) blindly follows the law. For some reason, legislatures tend to lag far behind events in updating laws so they make sense. Maybe it's because they're so much more eager to make NEW laws to complicate our lives.

[Joshua M. Smith]

Hello,

It was once tradition in my family to take a rifle to school and hunt your way home. This started way back, and the last person to do it, so far as I know, was my grandfather for food in the Great Depression. I do not know if there were seasons here in Indiana at that time, and I do not think folks who were hungry cared.

When great-Grandma would ask what the kids (Grandpa etc) wanted for supper and they asked for squirrel, she'd tell them to go get their rifles and they'd go back to the woodlot on the farm. (Most days they had wild game, milk and strawberries. They were lucky in that they weren't ever hungry. Grandpa would shove cardboard in his shoes so his sisters could have new shoes, but that's only money).

I only shoot out-of-season to protect land and property, and this is always reported to the DNR. It's not unusual for the farmers to have deer tags out-of-season either as they're protecting crops and tags are issued for this reason.

My personal thing is to use a primitive-type muzzleloader for deer during all firearms seasons (legal in Indiana). I've been thinking about getting decent with a recurve bow as I hate compound bows. We will see. I'm not a hardcore deer hunter; I just go out and pop one if I want venison, if deer are in season.

Regards,

Josh

[bejay]

Im sure we all know of someone or even have family that doesnt exactly follow the law when it comes to hunting whether you agree with it is really up to you.
the fines and possible loss of equipment and hunting rights can be steep for someone caught, depending on what game laws they break it could just be a small fine also and not that big of a deal.

[oneounceload]

Do you also stand by slavery?

No, and it has nothing to do with the thread at all

I have seen folks kill deer and after measuring the horns and realizing they weren't big enough to win some big buck contest, leave a 34" mulie to rot. I have watched poachers kill wrong game, kill out of season, and watched as a friend had his horse shot out from under him - even though both were fully clad in blaze orange - because someone was hunting out of season

So yes I DO believe what I wrote - I also believe in killing murderers, rapists and child molesters - even mothers who kill their own daughters - (something here in Florida we seem to have the market cornered for)

You don't agree? Fine - but to those who disagree, your petty name calling is not very High Road and if you disagree then have a debate about it

[Rail Driver]

In my opinion it depends on whether they are hunting their own land or somebody else's. I feel that people should respect published hunting seasons on public property, but when hunting their own property or other private property (with documented permission) it shouldn't matter.

The law doesn't agree. That's about as far as I know how to respond to this one.

[Flintknapper]

RD,

Are you saying that State Laws and hunting ethics STOP at property lines?

I don't know the status of game animals in every State but in my State (Texas), game animals belong to the State...not the landowner/agent.

Should anyone have a problem with the current game laws, work to change them, NOT disregard them because....well....." It's MY property "! :(

[EmbarkChief]

My family and extended family own land here in Texas. The game laws of this state are followed by all parties involved. I've never even heard of someone shooting a deer out of season with the exception of the sporatic deer stuck in a fence or involved in a vehicle collision.

[HGUNHNTR]

I find it disgusting how many on this forum has posted that they agree with poaching as long as it is on private property. I never would have guess that on this forum...others yes, but not THR.

[T Bran]

jimmieraythomason
I guess I should take that into account my apologies.
However I dont know wheather to be happy for folks who dont have a hog problem or sad for them. On the plus side they are yummy.
On the minus side they find your property yummy.
T

[VT Deer Hunter]

We dont have an illegal tradition but it is a very odd thing thought, when you gut the buck you take the "fuzzy dice" and hang them on a branch of a tree near by. :D

[Mike1234567]

I find it disgusting how many on this forum has posted that they agree with poaching as long as it is on private property. I never would have guess that on this forum...others yes, but not THR.
What? You don't think any THR members might be law-breakers? Where have you been? Oh... you must be under 30 years old and still un-jaded. Let me give you the real facts young-'on. Fully half, more-or-less, of this country are basically sociopathic. An additional quarter are borderline sociopathic. The remaining quarter are basically good but, of those, only one of ten of this country are truly honest and caring. The others are, to some degree, incapable of even understanding what you're trying to say.

Sorry to bash your rosy view of society in America but that's the cold honest truth.

[Rail Driver]

... poaching ...

Can someone tell me the similarity between shooting a deer on your own property out of season and stealing 100 lbs of meat from a grocery store? It seems like people are equating poaching/out of season hunting with thievery, or something worse.

While I understand the value in not randomly slaughtering everything in sight at every opportunity (I'm far from an idiot, criminal, or unethical hunter), I would like someone to explain to me how on earth things went from "You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone and we'll both be ok" to this current trend of "don't do anything outside the bounds of accepted society and hunt deer a day early or you'll be called a sociopath". The sociopath statement brought to mind an old adage, something about people in glass houses not throwing rocks.

If your neighbor's activities are offensive to you, by all means shut yourself off from them, but attempting to control what your neighbor does on his own land is kinda like trying to infringe on his rights isn't it? We don't like it when people tell us where when and how we can carry firearms for self defense as long as we're safe and not committing an actual crime, so why should anyone tell us where when or how we can hunt as long as we're safe and ethical?

[HGUNHNTR]

What? You don't think any THR members might be law-breakers? Where have you been? Oh... you must be under 30 years old and still un-jaded. Let me give you the real facts young-'on. Fully half, more-or-less, of this country are basically sociopathic. An additional quarter are borderline sociopathic. The remaining quarter are basically good but, of those, only one of ten of this country are truly honest and caring. The others are, to some degree, incapable of even understanding what you're trying to say.

Sorry to bash your rosy view of society in America but that's the cold honest truth.

Thanks, but I don't appreciate your condescending tone, and btw I am not under 30. The reason for my statement is the reason for the formation of this site. I am surprised because of the general integrity, and descency shown to fellow members on this site, that so many would condone illegal activity. This is The High Road, is it not?

[Mike1234567]

HGUNHUNTER... I'm agreeing with you. :) My sarcasm is directed at those who believe poaching is okay... and killing animals without need to feed one's self/family or protect one's family or property is okay. :) My sarcasm/pessimism developed from reading other THR posts from certain other members. And THIS is supposed to be "THR". AND, IMHO, it IS. Depressing, isn't it? :(

I'm sorry for my "under 30" comment. My "assumption" was that you've not yet lived long enough to be as jaded as I.

[Flintknapper]

RD wrote:


Can someone tell me the similarity between shooting a deer on your own property out of season and stealing 100 lbs of meat from a grocery store? It seems like people are equating poaching/out of season hunting with thievery, or something worse.

As a matter of fact….I can!

1. You steal 100 lbs. of meat from a grocery store (you have committed a crime) the meat belongs to the store and you did not have permission to take it, right?

2. You Poach a deer (steal the meat resource of an animal owned by the State). Again (you have committed a crime), the animal/meat resource belongs to the State and you did not have permission to take it.

So….in each case you committed a crime. In the first example…it is “theft” (straight up) in the second example it is also theft but the crime you will be charged with is “Poaching or taking an animal out of season”.

Most States now have laws that allow the courts to order “restitution” be paid to the State to replace the “value” of the animal. Why do they have these laws, because you STOLE IT. Sounds pretty “similar” to me.

This mentality of “My Land, My Rules” reaches a high end…when it violates, State or Federal Laws.

We ARE a nation of laws….remember?

If your neighbor's activities are offensive to you, by all means shut yourself off from them, but attempting to control what your neighbor does on his own land is kinda like trying to infringe on his rights isn't it?

It is NOT your “right” to hunt game animals, it is a privilege governed by State Law and can be taken away (just like your privilege to drive). There are rules, laws and regulations for a reason.

You might successfully argue that it is your “right” to break the law, but that it is a foolish proposition (if done on purpose).


We don't like it when people tell us where when and how we can carry firearms for self defense as long as we're safe and not committing an actual crime

Yes, but a rather important distinction is: Poaching a deer IS a crime, so I am not sure you have presented us with a reasonable analogy.


so why should anyone tell us where when or how we can hunt as long as we're safe and ethical?

I’ll assume by “anyone” you mean the State and are referring to the Game Laws when you say “where,when or how” we hunt.

There are a myriad of good reasons why the laws exist, simply being “safe” is not in itself justification to circumvent the law. I could steal your car and be “safe” about it.


As for ethics….that is subjective enough a matter that the State feels the need to provide some guidelines. I’ve seen enough (hunters ?) “ethics” in my lifetime to be persuaded that the State needs to establish the “minimums” in the form of laws and regulations….because Lord knows there are certain people unable to do it for themselves.


Its really very simple folks:

Obey the Game Laws. IF you disagree with them, we have a system in this country by which you may attempt to change them.

The Law, Truth, Honesty and Ethics…. should not hit a brick wall at your property line!

Just my .02 on it.

Flint.

[ZeroJunk]

We don't pick and chose the laws we obey. If everybody did there would be no end to it.

[langenc]

Read 'Survival poaching' by Ragnor--for entertainment of course.

Disrespect for one law is disrespect for all laws!



".......committing an actual crime, so why should anyone tell us where when or how we can hunt as long as we're safe and ethical?"

BUT ethical includes legal, most places.

[ljnowell]

We don't pick and chose the laws we obey. If everybody did there would be no end to it.

Yeah, most everyone does and I imagine you do too. You have never driven 1mph over the speed limit?

[ZeroJunk]

Yeah, most everyone does and I imagine you do too. You have never driven 1mph over the speed limit?

I have been driving for 40 years, sometimes 60,000 miles a year. And, I have never had a ticket.

If there is some logical extension from speeeding to poaching I guess I am just not bright enough to see it.

BTW, that's just what we need on a hunting forum, justifying poaching.

[Art Eatman]

"Horse stealing, cattle resulting were/are hanging offenses - basically poaching of private property."

Oneounceload, you're around a hundred years behind the times. Try the 21st century, not the 19th or earliest 20th.

Mike1234567, the carcasses would not be left to rot; the reason for the killing was to acquire the meat to sell. That's the "why" of that poaching effort. No $$$, no poaching.

Folks, this thread is degenerating into as trivial a level of exaggerated yet irrelevant points as I've seen this side of one of the handgun forums. You can do a lot better--or should, anyway. :(

[atek3]

I get the impression that BambiB is a more frequent poster than his/her two post count suggests.

While I don't advocate breaking laws unless the laws themselves are patently immoral, I do find it funny that so many conservative hunters go on this anti-poaching kick while on the other hand railing against socialism. The common law treatment of poaching was predicated on the fact that the animal's were all the property of the crown. The 13 Colonies inherited this odious part of common law. When the United States was founded we simply substituted the State for the king. Because game species are the property of the State, the State then introduces a rationing scheme to "fairly" allocate them to hunters.

To me, there is little difference between poaching deer and pilfering a pair of shoes from the People's Shoe Factory in the Soviet Union. Both behaviors are unfair to others, but they are situations of artificial scarcity created by common ownership of a scarce resource. When the price of a deer is $30 (the resident tag) and the price of Soviet shoes is 4 Roubles, the government will need to ration somehow. In both cases neither the hunter angry at the poacher nor the shoe buyer angry at the antisocial ukaznik who steals the shoes can imagine any system for resource allocation that doesn't involve the state.

atek3

[Davek1977]

While I don't think it excuses poaching, I do think landowner rights are a factor. The commonly and legally accepted idea is that the "state" owns the wildlife. Thats a bitter pill to swallow when the landowner provides the food, water, and shelter 24/7/365 for these critters they don't own. When harboring anyone else's livestock, we are paid rent for the land...and can dictate how hard its grazed, the number of animals permitted, etc. Yet, we get nothing for the vast herds of deer that eat our forage, drink the water, and utilize the shelter. Many will speak up and say "Well, if you don't want deer...allow them to be hunted." Nice try, but we DO allow hunting on our land, and have never charged for the privledge. Taking that into consideration, i don't think its necessarily "right" to force the landowner to apply and buy a deer tag just like a non-landowner. I don't know what the real answer is, but maybe granting private landowners with x amount of tags per x amount of acres....to do as they please with (sell, use themselves, share with family, etc) free of charge would be a start. Private landowners do a LOT for conservation efforts, and are shown little recognition for it. While not a perfect solution, I think an idea such as mine has some merit.....certainly moreso than a mandatory death penalty for poaching a deer, anyway!!! While a crime that deserves punishment, I see no rational for attempting to excuse murder because of someone committing a misdemeanor theft!

[Mike1234567]

(partial quote) Mike1234567, the carcasses would not be left to rot; the reason for the killing was to acquire the meat to sell. That's the "why" of that poaching effort. No $$$, no poaching.

Thanks, Art. I may be misunderstanding your reply but... I was writing about the scarcity of dear in my immediate area. Surprisingly few when I first moved here and now none at all to be seen. Lots of gunfire morning and evening. Not so much now that all the deer seem to have "vanished". :(

[sixgunner455]

The common law treatment of poaching was predicated on the fact that the animal's were all the property of the crown.

Amen, ATEK. That is what I kept thinking about as I've read this thread - the Crown, in most countries, owned all wild game and would hang a man as a thief for subsistence hunting, regardless of what species it was. The common man did not have the right to hunt, as this was the "Sport of Kings" (and their favored courtiers). Many hunting dog species were developed to assist the common man in sneaking on to royal or noble hunting preserves to get a few birds for the pot.

When people came to North America, the game belonged to whomever could kill or catch it, and this continued in the United States until the market hunting reductions in population in the early part of the 20th century necessitated some game laws be instituted so that wild animal populations could recover. Hunters, the common man of that era, supported this effort, and we continue to do so today, whether we realize it or not, by the taxes and fees we pay when we buy guns, ammo, and pay license fees.

I personally do not feel that poaching is theft. The State does not own that animal -- all of the people do. I do feel that it is wrong, and a crime, because the social compact we live under includes following the laws. The game laws exist to ensure the survival and continuation of those species instead of having them hunted to extinction, like the passenger pigeon. Our social compact as hunters and members of society means that we abide by the game laws because we recognize the good that they do.

If a law is illogical, out of date, or unfair, then we do not have the right to flout that law. Instead, we have a responsibility, also part of that social charter, to work to change the law so that it makes sense, is up to date with current populations of game, is fair, or whatever.

Hanging a person for poaching makes no sense whatsoever. Taking their truck, gun, etc, and anything else they used to poach, banning them from hunting for a period of time or for life, putting them in jail if they are an egregious offender, etc, is pretty harsh. Killing them is completely unreasonable, and an unacceptable level of punishment. That was one of many reasons that people emigrated from Europe so long ago - to escape that kind of autocratic, authoritarian garbage.

[atek3]

That was one of many reasons that people emigrated from Europe so long ago - to escape that kind of autocratic, authoritarian garbage.

here here

[average_shooter]

Maybe someone already mentioned it, if so I missed it, but there is a correlation between poaching and stealing meat from a store. And there is a way to legally own the game on your property.

As I understand it, some states have large ranch/preserves. The animals on this land are owned by the land owners. To keep their property on their land, and to keep wild populations out, they must construct and maintain high fences surrounding the property. In such a circumstance the game within the boundary is considered to be the property of the land owner.

Wild game is relatively free to move where it wants to. There can be no one owner of the game. Thus, by default, it is the "property" of the state.

If game ownership is merely dependent upon whose property the game is currently on, who would rightfully own the animal if I shoot it on my property but it runs to and dies on yours?

[buck460XVR]

That was one of many reasons that people emigrated from Europe so long ago - to escape that kind of autocratic, authoritarian garbage.

here here


Yep that's right. Folks didn't like the rules so they moved on. Same is true for today. You don't like the rules move on. Break the rules, ignore the law and you are a criminal, pretty simple. We live in a democratic society, where rules are decided by the majority. Every independent adult that lives here has the freedom to leave if they don't like it here. Don't like a law, do something positive to change it, tolerate it and abide by it or get the 'ell out. We got enough criminals here the way it is.

Amazed at the amount of people here at THR that justify breaking a law just becasue they don't agree with it. Says a lot about them.

[SavageManAntonio]

I have heard some outrageous statements before but some here are incomprehensible to me. I agree that there must be a reasonable punishment for breaking the law, certainly not confiscating all property and hanging...I do hear gunshots every year the day before the season opens and have seen spooked deer running after that, so I know there are poachers near me. Every year I hear gun shots before and after legal hours during the season. I do believe some people may have a watch that is wrong so a few minutes is understandable, an hour....not so much. It is those kind of A..holes that make it harder for us to hunt and have weapons. Personally, if I ever see it happen I will call the DEC and report it. We all have a responsibility to.

[Mike1234567]

Personally, if I ever see it happen I will call the DEC and report it. We all have a responsibility to.

Carry a small digital camera or camcorder with you... one with a fairly long zoom lens. :)

[SavageManAntonio]

I have been stewing over this. I still can't believe people justify what they are doing because they are on their own property or because it doesn't affect someone else....IT DOES!!!! When the deer population is decimated because of off-season hunting it affects all of us. Breaking the law also gives other hunters bad reputations in the eyes of the already skeptical, non-hunting, non-gun owner public. Shame on you whom justify your illegal actions. This is not the depression where people are starving and need food. This is not war time in our country. There is no well-meaning reason for poaching. If you are a landowner - prove that your property is being damaged to the DEC and get legal permission to hunt.

[jimmyraythomason]

prove that your property is being damaged to the DEC and get legal permission to hunt.
Who or What is DEC?

[SublimeSilence]

In the end this entire debate boils down to one basic principle. Do the ends justify the means?

I think for anyone to say that the death penalty is a fair punishment for poaching is going a bit far(personally). I can understand the sentiment as to why, but when making that distinction one starts to go down a slippery slope. If one starts there then why not make adultery punishable by death as well, it was done in biblical times so why not now? Heck that would be a great way to weed out some of the bad politicians!

But in the end everything in America comes down to what the populous wants. As Americans we over hunted many species and brought them to near extinction(buffalo anyone?) It is because of that, that the laws were put in place to protect many of the species we nearly killed off so that future generations could hunt and enjoy them.

When someone starts to bring up issues that can be argued and defined as shades of grey, such as breaking the law because it is unjust. Things start to get dicey. Is stealing a loaf of bread justifiable if your family is starving(poaching a dear for meat.) Is killing an animal that is protected alright when it is killing your livestock(grey wolves) or destroying your crop(deer coming onto your land due to overpopulation in search of food.) It is also always important to try reason if particular laws are causing more harm then good at times(anti-gun laws, prohibition, and some might argue the current war on drugs)

I'm not going to preach my personal views on this issue past what I already have because I think others have expressed them well enough. But I think we all(on any side of the debate) shouldn't overlook the value of prudence when discussing issues like this. Also keep in mind that no matter how moral our value system we come to believe is, that in the end it is just our opinion of how things should be based on how/why/where/and under what circumstances we grew up and came to be adults(Phenomenology.)

[SublimeSilence]

Who or What is DEC?

A quick google search led me to this answer:
department of environmental conservation

[jimmyraythomason]

department of environmental conservation Thanks,having been hunting since I was just big enough to tag along with my dad(I'm 58) I've never heard of DEC(here it is the Dept.of Natural Resources). Asking "permission" to take out a rabbit destroying a bean crop or a possum in the henhouse or a deer in the pea patch just seems so subservient to a "higher" authority. I think this is quite different from what the OP was talking about though.

[SublimeSilence]

Thanks,having been hunting since I was just big enough to tag along with my dad(I'm 58) I've never heard of DEC(here it is the Dept.of Natural Resources). Asking "permission" to take out a rabbit destroying a bean crop or a possum in the henhouse or a deer in the pea patch just seems so subservient to a "higher" authority. I think this is quite different from what the OP was talking about though.

Every state I believe has it's own entity of gov. you have to talk to. Being that I've just become interested in hunting though(I'm 25) I really don't know enough to say. My understanding is that in IL you have to talk to the DNR about issues like this. I also know that in IL when my good friends dad had problems with white tail deer on his property(In many parts/if not most of cook county white tail deer are overpopulated) the DNR itself came out to deal with it rather than giving him permission to do anything.

[.45Guy]

We live in a democratic society, where rules are decided by the majority.
Really? Last time I checked most legislation wasn't decided by plebiscite, especially game laws... If such were the case we would most likely not require this specific subforum, as hunters are a minority in this country.

[oneounceload]

We live in a democratic society, where rules are decided by the majority.

We live in a Republic and are subject to the rule of law, not majority rule

[scythefwd]

Horse stealing, cattle resulting were/are hanging offenses

In many cases they are grand theft larceny. Back in the day, when it was practiced, it was a persons lively hood. It very well could have been taking food out of someones mouth. Food they couldn't buy.

Today, not the case. FIND ME a case in the last 50 years where one person was hung for horse or cattle theft of only 2 or 3 animals. The non commercial poachers that this thread was posted about fall into that category. To lump them into the same category as someone that goes out and kills 40 deer in a night for antlers, glands, etc... and give them a death sentence is a bit of a stretch. Now, if the the person really is taking food off your table, not potential food that you could have gotten yourself but ACTUALLY making your family miss meals because there isn't food that would have been supplied by hunting... then you might have a case. I can't think of many in that situation.

[scythefwd]

Taking that into consideration, i don't think its necessarily "right" to force the landowner to apply and buy a deer tag just like a non-landowner Here in VA, the landowner hunts without license or tags. He is limited to dailly bag limit and possibly overall limits.

The state is concerned about the health of the herd statewide... Many land owners are concerened about the size of the herd in their back yard. I could hunt the herd here till nothing was left... if everybody did that, you'd kill the whole herd in the state. I don' think enough people have the restraint to pass up a good buck or two just to keep the herd thriving. In general, I find people don't think that far ahead. That is all the state thinks about... If I don't let you take every buck in the herd... I can keep it going.

. I was writing about the scarcity of dear in my immediate area. Surprisingly few when I first moved here and now none at all to be seen
Come on over here to VA with an out of state tag... you'll find no shortage of deer. I get 6 tags every year... no lottery. Little more expensive... but our herd is suitable strong.

[der Teufel]

Maybe someone already mentioned it, if so I missed it, but there is a correlation between poaching and stealing meat from a store. And there is a way to legally own the game on your property.

As I understand it, some states have large ranch/preserves. The animals on this land are owned by the land owners. To keep their property on their land, and to keep wild populations out, they must construct and maintain high fences surrounding the property. In such a circumstance the game within the boundary is considered to be the property of the land owner.

I don't think that's how it works in Texas. If you construct a high fence and enclose some white tail deer or turkeys or ??? all you've done is enclose some game animals. Ownership doesn't change. Now, if you enclose or add non-game or exotic animals, those can be considered your property just as if you were raising cattle or goats. Game animals however, still belong to the state and the game rules must be followed. Limits and seasons apply, tags must be used where required, etc.

[22-rimfire]

It is simple for me... I'd turn them in unless they stopped shooting game out of season. My Dad did stuff like that when he was young. He grew up very poor and I suspect it was a result of his heritage. When he learned that his children were ready to turn him in, it stopped.

[Zombiphobia]

I'm not very keen on law and politics so I would appreciate mature and respectful responses to this question.


If we live in a society where the rule is determined by the majority, what is the purpose of the electoral college and how does it work?
Seems to me the electoral college has the authority to over-rule the vote of the majority. I may be wrong, but what's the deal here?


Either way, Malum Prohibitum Vs Malum In Se....

Hunting out of season for meat to live is one thing. Hunting out of season to get a head-start and as 'family tradition' is quite another.

Also, shooting animals to keep them out of your crops I'd say is ok, as long as you don't leave the animal to waste. BUT shooting that animal just because you see them and they hold still long enough is NOT ok.

Also, stealing food from a grocery store because you can't afford to buy it is different than stealing electronics or other devices to entertain yourself.

I hold little to no value whatsoever in obeying law simply because that law is written that way. A certain understanding of what is actually right and wrong goes into my actions and how I judge others.

Like self defense with lethal force. For soem reason it's ok in some places but not in others. Does that make it morally right or wrong to defend yourself just because the written law says so? No.
And that brings up my next point. Whoever mentioned sociopathic tendencies I think, was right on the money. Some people lack the mental capacity to fully understand these types of matters.

I do think though, that the type of person who whole-heartedly beleives in and obeys every single law just because it's written law, has got their head screwed on wrong. Those are the types easiest to control, and those are the types a tyrranical government will have no problems with.


Have I shot deer out of season? Yes, a few. But only a few.
Do I feel bad about it? Yes, but not because it's 'illegal'.
Do I do it to get a head-start? No. I do it when I need meat and can't afford the over-priced stuff in stores. Game wardens? Few and far between and besides, their meat usually goes to organized charities. Get a plate-full of lousy, improperly prepared food or get a freezer full of safely handled, properly cooked food... hmmm I think the decision is pretty easy for me to make.

And gee, if I get caught.. well, I guess our government shouldn't be robbing me at every turn, should they? But then they can feed me 3 square meals a day and I'll finally get medical care. And yes, most of the deer I have shot out of season were on government land.

So my view is this. Do it if you need to, not because it's 'tradition'. Thats just silly in my opinion.

And my personal opinion is most people who preach solid right and wrong and will condemn a person for anything and everything they deem to be 'wrong' have never been in any position of need themselves, and because of this will find every reason imagneable to view themselves as being a more Holy soul than thou.

Anyhoo, this 'tradition' thing.. yeah, I think what their doing is wrong. If it's on private land ok... as long as their not shooting pregnant does or a spotted fawn, or a doe with a spotted fawn etc... something that should be obviously detrimental to the survival of the species.. than whatever. I just probably wouldn't hunt with them.

if it's public land, and their doing ok money-wise and not doing this because they actually NEED to, than I'd probably be a jerk and turn them in.

[Mike1234567]

Zombi... I can't morally argue against anything you posted. However, I will say that, IMHO as shaped by my 50+ years of life experience, most (not all) folks who perform illegal acts do so because they're either lazy, greedy, or just cruel. Additionally, IMHO, these are all related to psychopathy.

[FLAvalanche]

i know its poaching and illegal. on that note though... does anyone have family/friends that hunt legally ( licenses, season dates) but only use one hunting implement during all 3 seasons. ie: they use a rifle for bow-rifle-muzzle loader seasons.

just curious.
I hunt with a license but use one implement throughout all the seasons. I use a bow, which is legal in Florida.

My only complaint is that I have to purchase a muzzleloader stamp in order to use my bow during muzzleloader...

[.45Guy]

If we live in a society where the rule is determined by the majority, what is the purpose of the electoral college and how does it work?
Seems to me the electoral college has the authority to over-rule the vote of the majority. I may be wrong, but what's the deal here?
There are only 12 states at present that allow for maverick electors, though there are several with ballot initiatives to allow for split electoral decision.

[ljnowell]

I do not support poaching but I have to ask a question. I see a lot of people here that are saying "we cant pick and choose what rules to follow" or "it doesnt matter whats right, its illegal and thats that." While I do not refute those statements I have to ask if that is the general feeling why do I see such things posted as "concealed means concealed?" Surely this is ignoring rules we do not like, isnt it?

[jimmyraythomason]

"it doesnt matter whats right, its illegal and thats that." Here is a situation that i was personally involved in. I live along a State Highway which is a major travel route. One Sunday afternoon I saw a motorist pulled over in front of my house and looking into the ditch. He looked like he was in a bit of a quandry but soon left. I assumed he or some-one had hit an animal and unable to help it had just left. I went over and sure enough there was a dog,(only a puppy actually) eviserated but very much alive. I called the sheriff's office for the animal control officer and was told he was off duty and could not be reached. I requested a deputy to come euthanize the poor creature. No deputy available. I reminded the deputy about Alabama's law against killing dogs(a felony)as well as the law against discharging a firearm by a public road. Sorry says the deputy,"we can't help. What you do about it is up to you.". Not willing to let it suffer any longer I shot it,brought it to my property and buried it. In doing so,I broke not one but two state laws. Should I now be hung for it?

[788Ham]

jimmyray, I think the good Lord was smiling on you for helping the poor animal, you're a good man!
As far as being able to hunt without a license because you're the landowner, that doesn't apply in Colorado. Someone earlier in this thread said they thought it was terrible to confiscate ones firearms, vehicles, and equipment for poaching, here in this state, that's exactly what happens. Several years back, a family I grew up with, got their clan together and went elk hunting, packed in about 14 miles to set up camp on Thur., the season opened on Sat. When they were within a short distance of where they always camped, another camp was set up, two big 6 point bulls and two nice 4 point Mule deer bucks hanging in the shade. They went on in to their campsite, one rider had to return to get something they'd forgotten. On the ride out, he ran into 2 G&F officers checking things out before the season opened. Upon telling the officers of the find, they rode in and proceeded to confiscate the whole camp, lock, stock and barrel. By the time the Texas residents were through with the court system, they were charged a total of, IIRC, about $95K apiece for the animals taken, lost all of their equipment and were barred from hunting or fishing in the state for 10 more years, seems like they were given 6 mos. jail time, but the judge dropped 2 mos. off of that time for time already served. Seems fair to me.

[lizziedog1]

All evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing about it.

I would turn my grandmother in for poaching.

I have zreo tolerance for it. They are thieves, plain and simple.

[rozziboy18]

sticking to the op's question,
yes, my father and 3 uncles have a tradition of wearing normal every day clothes instead of cammo, they think camo spooks game. and sence we are in the heart of vol country we all wear ut orange instead of blaze orange. the game wardens dont seem to mind


there, stright, to the point, not off topic and not preachy!

[TonyM]

I adhere to the game season laws, even those I deem unnecessary or odd (no Sunday hunting for instance). Survival would be another story......

[scythefwd]

Originally Posted by butcherboy
i know its poaching and illegal. on that note though... does anyone have family/friends that hunt legally ( licenses, season dates) but only use one hunting implement during all 3 seasons. ie: they use a rifle for bow-rifle-muzzle loader seasons.

just curious.

I hunt with a muzzle loader in 2 of 3 seasons.. I don't hunt bow. I could use a crossbow, or any other bow all 3 seasons if I wanted to.. it's legal here.

[22-rimfire]

I have no problem with a person shooting a doe out of season to feed his family if it is really necessary. If they shot a nice buck, that is another matter. I don't know anyone where that is the case.

I respect the game laws even when I don't agree with them. I am a conservationist. Game laws are not set by elected politicans. They are set or recomended based on a knowledge of the wild game populations whether it be fishing creel limits, antler restrictions on deer, or the sex and number of deer that are allowed to be harvested by a single individual. That in part why in my state you can shoot quite a few deer if you really want to shift your hunting to the various Regions and certain counties and participate in the various firearm based seasons (archery, black powder, rifle, shotgun in some areas, etc.).

I don't have much sympathy for poachers who do it because they feel like it whether it be their "family heritage" or not. Equating "family to gang", some of the gangs have initiation requirements.... does that make it right to hurt somebody or rob a store even if they "need" it. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

[jimmyraythomason]

Game laws are not set by elected politicans. Actually they are in some cases. Some game laws are even passed by referendum.

[BambiB]

No, and it has nothing to do with the thread at all

Actually it does. It's a pretty good example of blind obedience to law - which is the central thrust of this entire topic.

I have seen folks kill deer and after measuring the horns and realizing they weren't big enough to win some big buck contest, leave a 34" mulie to rot. I have watched poachers kill wrong game, kill out of season, and watched as a friend had his horse shot out from under him - even though both were fully clad in blaze orange - because someone was hunting out of season
I think WASTING game should be severely punished. Anyone who does that should lose their equipment, their right to hunt and their freedom (for a period of time). As for your friend having his horse shot out from under him - please explain how that only happened because the event happened "out of season"?

[BambiB]

I would turn my grandmother in for poaching.


The police state relies upon people who would "turn in their own grandmothers".

French resistors and those harboring jews during WWII had that problem constantly.

[BambiB]

I have no problem with a person shooting a doe out of season to feed his family if it is really necessary. If they shot a nice buck, that is another matter.
Interesting. So you would place trophy hunting as a higher "good" than subsistence hunting? In other words, if someone were hunting for food, and shot a buck with a nice rack, that would be wrong (why?)

Game laws... are set or recomended based on a knowledge of the wild game populations whether it be fishing creel limits, antler restrictions on deer, or the sex and number of deer that are allowed to be harvested by a single individual.


In that case, in most of the Country, those setting the limits aren't doing their jobs. When I was up in Pennsylvania, co-workers told me of a "game" they used to play. They'd hold a picnic at a house on a hilltop overlooking a corn field. They'd set up a table with a rifle and wait for a herd of deer to wander in. The game was to shoot a deer and chug their beer before the deer hit the ground. Reportedly, the deer would hang around while 2-3 or them were shot, then mosey out of the area - to be followed shortly by another herd of deer.

All legal. The property owner held a 50-head "nuisance" permit. At the end of the party, they'd call up the game warden and he'd come pick up all the carcasses. If the total was up to 50, he'd issue a new permit.

Now, what are the odds that people hunting out of season for subsistence could even make a dent in such a population of deer? Mind you - I'm not talking about commercial hunting, or shoot-em-and-leave-em hunting.

I don't have much sympathy for poachers who do it because they feel like it whether it be their "family heritage" or not. Equating "family to gang", some of the gangs have initiation requirements.... does that make it right to hurt somebody or rob a store even if they "need" it. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

I've come to view the police pretty much the same way. There are a LOT of cops who would be in prison for things they've done but for the fact that their gang wears badges. You appear to be saying the government gang is okay - but the family gangs are not.

[BambiB]

RD,

Are you saying that State Laws and hunting ethics STOP at property lines?

I don't know the status of game animals in every State but in my State (Texas), game animals belong to the State...not the landowner/agent.

Should anyone have a problem with the current game laws, work to change them, NOT disregard them because....well....." It's MY property "! :(
That's one approach. Unfortunately, it amounts to begging the people who barred you from doing what you want with your own land to please, please, please let me do what I want on my own land. If you're worth billions, it's simple. You just sue until they surrender. Otherwise, you're likely wasting your time.

[BambiB]

Thanks, but I don't appreciate your condescending tone, and btw I am not under 30. The reason for my statement is the reason for the formation of this site. I am surprised because of the general integrity, and descency shown to fellow members on this site, that so many would condone illegal activity. This is The High Road, is it not?
I think the hidden (and mistaken) assumption is that all laws are inherently good.

If that were the truth, there would be little dissent in government.

But the truth is, there are a lot of bad laws, and perversion of law is endemic - especially to the Feral [sic] Government.

The root of much of this evil is the case of Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supremes (under threat of FDR court-packing) found that a farmer growing wheat on his own farm for his own use "affected" interstate commerce and thus could be regulated by the Feral Government.

From that decision, Feral power has exploded. It's been estimated that as much as 90% of what the Feds do within states is based on this one misbegotten case. Entire agencies rely upon it for their very existence (DEA, BATF, ED, OSHA, etc.) In effect, that misinterpretation of the Constitution says the Federales can do whatever they want. And frankly, sometimes they want to pass bad laws.

Now, some people blindly follow the law, whether it's a good law or a bad law. Among those, if the law said, "Kill your own grandmother" - they'd do it - because that's what the law tells them to do.

Others... well, others take The High Road, and pay less attention to bad laws than they do to good ones.

[BambiB]

2. You Poach a deer (steal the meat resource of an animal owned by the State).

Whoa! A deer that has been eating your plants on your land "belongs to the state"? Well, then, at the very least, the state owes your for grazing. And in any case where such an animal causes damage, the state should be held liable. Since the deer overpopulation in many northeastern states has become a huge damage issue (with thousands of dollars of landscaping being wiped out in a single night), and the spread of disease among cattle can cost many thousands of dollars, when can we expect the state to step up and take responsibility?

Point is, you're wrong. The state does not "own" the deer.

Most States now have laws that allow the courts to order “restitution” be paid to the State to replace the “value” of the animal.
Please provide a cite. I believe this is factually incorrect, and what you're referring to is a fine based on violating game laws.

This mentality of “My Land, My Rules” reaches a high end…when it violates, State or Federal Laws.

We ARE a nation of laws….remember?


Oh my! Yes indeed. So here's a 30-second cram course in Constitutional law:

The Constitution (the "highest" law of the land) delegates to the Federal Government select enumerated powers. Any power not enumerated in the Constitution cannot be lawfully exercised by the Federal Government. The Tenth Amendment makes this abundantly clear -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Consequently, if drafting or enforcing laws with regard to wild game is a legitimate exercise of Federal power, it will be listed in the Constitution.

No such power is listed.

Therefore, Federal game laws are unconstitutional.

As already mentioned, this has not stopped the perversion of the Constitution. See Wickard v. Filburn.

[BambiB]

The common law treatment of poaching was predicated on the fact that the animal's were all the property of the crown. The 13 Colonies inherited this odious part of common law. When the United States was founded we simply substituted the State for the king. Because game species are the property of the State, the State then introduces a rationing scheme to "fairly" allocate them to hunters.

Incorrect. See http://blog.timesunion.com/wildlife/who-owns-wildlife/2/

Both behaviors are unfair to others, but they are situations of artificial scarcity created by common ownership of a scarce resource. When the price of a deer is $30 (the resident tag) and the price of Soviet shoes is 4 Roubles, the government will need to ration somehow.

An interesting hypothesis, but generally incorrect.

The "price" of deer (tag) is artificially established by the government and is not a function of market demand. Were it otherwise, the cost of a deer tag would have been falling for at least the last 30 years. During that interval, deer stocks have risen to an all-time high. There are currently more wild deer in America than there were when Columbus arrived over 500 years ago.

At the same time, the number of hunters has declined over the same interval. Thus, the demand (number of hunters) has gone down while the supply (number of deer) has gone up. Basic economics dictates that a market-driven price must decline in such circumstances. Only when the price is held artificially high would we see $30 tags. (Note: The price of the tag likely reflects, in part, the cost of increased overhead - that is, the cost of enforcing game laws.)

[BambiB]

When the deer population is decimated because of off-season hunting it affects all of us.

True. But the deer population is not decimated.
http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/pages/deerpopulationfacts.aspx
Consequently, the thrust of your statement is incorrect.

This is not the depression where people are starving and need food.
Incorrect. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601598.html

This is not war time in our country.
Incorrect. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Yemen. Pakistan. And military "advisors" sent to Uganda. (Which is how Vietnam started.) We are presently spending over $1 trillion per year to maintain 800 military bases around the world and to engage in combat in at least 5 foreign countries

There is no well-meaning reason for poaching.
How about avoiding starvation?

If you are a landowner - prove that your property is being damaged to the DEC and get legal permission to hunt.
Better yet, have the government prove that taking a deer out of season is a bad thing (with deer populations at all-time record highs).

[Mike1234567]

The deer population in my little neck-of-the-woods is nearly gone. I moved here a little over three months ago surprised/disappointed to see so few of them (unusual for this area). I heard gun shots in the AM and PM nearly every day. I almost never see deer here anymore and seldom hear gunshots either. Hmm... what does that mean?

[BambiB]

In the end this entire debate boils down to one basic principle. Do the ends justify the means?
I believe the overriding question is whether one has the responsibility to obey an unjust (or unconstitutional) law. Once we determine that the law is correct, then the question of whether breaking the law is justified by a greater good. There is no reason to obey an illegal law (aside from self-preservation.)

But in the end everything in America comes down to what the populous wants. As Americans we over hunted many species and brought them to near extinction(buffalo anyone?) It is because of that, that the laws were put in place to protect many of the species we nearly killed off so that future generations could hunt and enjoy them.

Correct. Which is why deer hunting in particular should no longer be subject to those laws. We eliminated commercial hunting and most of the predators that kept the deer population in check. The population has exploded and is now greater than at any time in known history. That the laws have not been revised accordingly is an example of the dilatory nature of government.

[ZeroJunk]

an illegal law

I have not heard of a challenge to the constitutionality of game laws. Has there been one?

The population problem is a result of too few people wanting to hunt and those who do hunt not wanting to kill enough deer to control the population. Here as in many states you can kill as many doe as you want. People just don't.

As far as the season timing, it has more to do with the reproductive cycle. I suspect most hunters would refrain from killing a doe either in late pregnancy or with a fawn that would not survive.

[buck460XVR]

I believe the overriding question is whether one has the responsibility to obey an unjust (or unconstitutional) law. Once we determine that the law is correct, then the question of whether breaking the law is justified by a greater good. There is no reason to obey an illegal law (aside from self-preservation.)

Bambi...I'm still trying to figure out if you're trolling or joking with your posts. Either way, you have given us a perfect example of the criminal mindset. They too have all kinds of excuses or self declared rational for what they do. What it really boils down to is greed, and no respect for authority and other peoples property.









Which is why deer hunting in particular should no longer be subject to those laws. We eliminated commercial hunting and most of the predators that kept the deer population in check. The population has exploded and is now greater than at any time in known history. That the laws have not been revised accordingly is an example of the dilatory nature of government.

Another fine example of the thinking of someone who hasn't the slightest idea of how modern deer management works. Areas of overpopulation of deer today is not related to antiquated or too strict of regulations. It boils down to lack of hunter access to private properties, populations in areas where regular hunting is not feasible(as in urban areas), and the reluctance of hunters to shoot non-antlered or what they consider sub-quality animals. To condone poaching and trespassing to remedy this is grasping for straws that aren't there. Most modern poachers don't violate for noble means, as in feeding their staving families or robbing from the mean King. They poach because it gives them an advantage to take a better quality animal or more animals than if they hunted legally. Popping a big buck outta the headlights the night before season is not noble.......it is criminal. No matter how hard you try to justify it. I'm just glad I don't hunt where you and your friends hunt Bambi, and I'm glad I'm not your neighbor. I prefer the honest and law abiding ones I have now.

[BambiB]

Bambi...I'm still trying to figure out if you're trolling or joking with your posts. Either way, you have given us a perfect example of the criminal mindset. They too have all kinds of excuses or self declared rational for what they do. What it really boils down to is greed, and no respect for authority and other peoples property.

I assure you, I am not "trolling", though it is increasingly clear that the Constitutional and legal fundamentals I've put forth are foreign to many who post here. I look at it as an opportunity to educate. You should see it as an opportunity to learn.

Actually, the "mindset" is one of Constitutionality versus appearance of law. See http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm Or just google, "unconstitutional laws" and read at your leisure.

Areas of overpopulation of deer today is not related to antiquated or too strict of regulations. It boils down to lack of hunter access to private properties, populations in areas where regular hunting is not feasible(as in urban areas), and the reluctance of hunters to shoot non-antlered or what they consider sub-quality animals.

I don't doubt that those additional factors figure in. But the primary reasons for stock growth has been fewer predators - human or otherwise.

Most modern poachers don't violate for noble means, as in feeding their staving families or robbing from the mean King. They poach because it gives them an advantage to take a better quality animal or more animals than if they hunted legally.

Actually, I think this probably varies with the species. Bear, for example, is often poached for commercial purposes (Far East superstitions about the contribution of various bear parts contributing to sexual potency driving part of this trade.) But with regard to the species I've addressed, specifically deer and some migratory birds, I look forward to your providing a citation that supports your assertion. Do you have one? And if not, do you really know what you think you know?

[22-rimfire]

BambiB saidSo you would place trophy hunting as a higher "good" than subsistence hunting? In other words, if someone were hunting for food, and shot a buck with a nice rack, that would be wrong.

Both instances are wrong as far as I'm concerned. There is no "good" involved. I do attach a higher value to the buck. Most deer mangement activities often involve reducing the female population to control the amount of herd growth where the land can not support the rising deer population. Techniques also include culling out the bucks that are older or exhibit certain antler producing qualities.

I would make allowances for someone truly in need who is willing to work a little for what they get. Hunting often entails work. I know less fortunate people who want deer meat from me... but only after I package and freeze it. Like welfare, they simply have their hand out and I pay for it one way or another.

In that case, in most of the Country, those setting the limits aren't doing their jobs. When I was up in Pennsylvania, co-workers told me of a "game" they used to play. They'd hold a picnic at a house on a hilltop overlooking a corn field. They'd set up a table with a rifle and wait for a herd of deer to wander in. The game was to shoot a deer and chug their beer before the deer hit the ground. Reportedly, the deer would hang around while 2-3 or them were shot, then mosey out of the area - to be followed shortly by another herd of deer.

All legal. The property owner held a 50-head "nuisance" permit. At the end of the party, they'd call up the game warden and he'd come pick up all the carcasses. If the total was up to 50, he'd issue a new permit.

Now, what are the odds that people hunting out of season for subsistence could even make a dent in such a population of deer? Mind you - I'm not talking about commercial hunting, or shoot-em-and-leave-em hunting.

Where in PA was that? There are areas in PA that have high whitetail populations. I don't doubt that nuisance permits are granted in certain areas. This is usually in areas of private property or near urban areas. PA started a controversial deer mangement program a few years ago which caused many PA hunters heartburn. My impression is they went a little too far too quickly. Some PA hunters apparantly liked the old way of deer starving and seeing the available browse reduced to nothing during the winter. Antler restrictions work and more doe permits are issued now.

You have clearly never lived in an area that has a low whitetail population. Poaching there would cause a lot of damage to the future growth of the herd. Deer are not migratory animals like ducks. They pretty much live and die in the area they were born and may perhaps broaden their range if food supplies dwindle.

I've come to view the police pretty much the same way. There are a LOT of cops who would be in prison for things they've done but for the fact that their gang wears badges. You appear to be saying the government gang is okay - but the family gangs are not.

The "family" gangs are not okay. I have not experienced any significant police activity that was outside the law. If anything, I want more activity by the police in areas where the bad guys live and those "family" gangs.

Tag fees are based on what the state wildlife folk needs in revenue, history, and their interpretation of supply and demand in the market.

Deer are viewed as a resource of the state and not "owned" by the land owner unless the property is "high fenced" to keep deer out and manage the population of animals that reside inside the fenced area.

[BambiB]

Both instances are wrong as far as I'm concerned. There is no "good" involved.

One generally considers preventing human starvation as a "good" - but there are those who consider (with some justification) that the human herd needs culling.

I do attach a higher value to the buck. Most deer mangement activities often involve reducing the female population to control the amount of herd growth where the land can not support the rising deer population. Techniques also include culling out the bucks that are older or exhibit certain antler producing qualities.

Do you attach a higher value because of some societal status you attach to the antlers? Perhaps that's where attitudes need adjusting.

I agree that the more effective way to control the herd numbers is to cull the females. Ironically, that argues that if you want to maintain numbers, you should shoot the bucks and not the females. So a poacher who shoots a buck does less damage to the population than one that shoots a doe (if maintaining/increasing herd size is the goal.) I suspect that was part of game management 30 years ago - shoot the bucks, preserve the herd.


I would make allowances for someone truly in need who is willing to work a little for what they get. Hunting often entails work. I know less fortunate people who want deer meat from me... but only after I package and freeze it. Like welfare, they simply have their hand out and I pay for it one way or another.

Fair enough.

Where in PA was that? There are areas in PA that have high whitetail populations. I don't doubt that nuisance permits are granted in certain areas.
It was a rural area outside Allentown.

Incidentally, I also recall newspaper accounts of deer permits being issue to hunt deer within the city of Philadelphia. The permits were only issue to LEOs, but IIRC, they could take along two "hunting buddies". When deer become so numerous that areas inside cities are overrun, you know that the game management has succeeded to the point of failure!

Some PA hunters apparantly liked the old way of deer starving and seeing the available browse reduced to nothing during the winter.

And that's pretty much the point. Why bother with any game (deer) restrictions when the alternative to hunting is starvation (of both deer and humans)?

You have clearly never lived in an area that has a low whitetail population. Poaching there would cause a lot of damage to the future growth of the herd. Deer are not migratory animals like ducks. They pretty much live and die in the area they were born and may perhaps broaden their range if food supplies dwindle.

And in such areas, the laws may be different. But in the PA example I gave, Joe Hunter couldn't get a 50-head permit. Only a person with a "nuisance deer" problem could - and then, they could not keep the deer they killed. Under such circumstances, it's clear that even the state recognizes that deer have gone from game animal to nuisance... maybe even to varmint.


I have not experienced any significant police activity that was outside the law.

Check out the front page of KeepAndBearArms.com. Most days they have a half dozen or so examples of cops gone bad. Saturday's issue had two accounts of cops being arrested for theft, one of obstruction of justice, one who got probation for two counts of tampering with records and one count of obstruction of justice, and one ICE agent confessing to embezzlement. Usually there's a rape or three and a murder thrown in for good measure. Friday's issue had coverage of Miami paying out $500,000 to compensate a victim of cop rape, an admission by a NY cop that he framed people on drug charges, and an indictment of a cop on three felony charges.

Once you tune in to these cases, you start to realize that there are an awful lot of bad cops sucking up taxpayer money while acting like gang members in blue.

Tag fees are based on what the state wildlife folk needs in revenue, history, and their interpretation of supply and demand in the market.
I'd say that their interpretation may be as bad as Bernanke's.

Deer are viewed as a resource of the state and not "owned" by the land owner unless the property is "high fenced" to keep deer out and manage the population of animals that reside inside the fenced area.

I've addressed the issue of "ownership".

[22-rimfire]

Do you attach a higher value because of some societal status you attach to the antlers? Perhaps that's where attitudes need adjusting.

I agree that the more effective way to control the herd numbers is to cull the females. Ironically, that argues that if you want to maintain numbers, you should shoot the bucks and not the females. So a poacher who shoots a buck does less damage to the population than one that shoots a doe (if maintaining/increasing herd size is the goal.) I suspect that was part of game management 30 years ago - shoot the bucks, preserve the herd.

Antlers do have a higher value in the real world. I need no adjusting.

One of the few things you have said that I agree with as far as deer management. That was the general technique employed since a buck can service more than a couple does.

Nuisance permits are issued to land owners not Joe Hunter. And the example you mentioned was close to an urban center as I suspected. But deer can cause damage. So do ground hogs. Talk to most farmers and they will tell you.

That may be true about Philadelphia and deer. You need to get out away from the population centers and look around. Deer management programs are implemented for the entire state. There will always be areas where populations increase beyond what the habitat can support in its present form. That is part of the reason for hunting. But the regulations restrict hunting near population centers as well as dwellings. Private land owers also restrict access to their property. There should be signs posted saying "hunters welcome". But instead, many land owners want paid for the access in the form of a hunting lease. In which case, it becomes the leasee's private hunting preserve. But they paid for it. So, good for them.

As far as police goes... there are bad people in all groups. But as a group, I would say the police are AAA. I think your attitude needs some adjusting.

[Art Eatman]

This thread has adjusted itself out of existence. :D