Good reason to carry some less than lethal shells in the field while bird hunting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hippie team roping!
Click to expand...

I'm in!

Funny you mention rodeos - this same Shark group has a bunch of anti-rodeo videos on youtube, which can be seen right from that page I linked to above. Crusading against rodeos is their biggest thing - I actually agree with them to an extent on that issue.

The bolo 12 ga shells are a good idea. Not for the chute though - that may cause him to crash & die - but to bolo his legs/body to maybe bring him down.

Brings new meaning to the phrase "Pull!", don't it?

And when you're quacking away on your duck call, remember that it can also attract 'quacks' (after all, it IS a "quack call"!). :)
 
WOW! Just WOW!

Things like that make me want to take a video camera with me when I hunt. I would like to know the outcome of this.

I like that they invite people to do something with real "sport" in the comments, like giving the game a gun. If they are willing to play that game, I am. Even if it was just with a paintball gun so I don't go to jail.
 
i would say pepper spray or even better bring a paint ball gun with you on your hunt for just such an occasion. Can you see the look on his face when you start opening up on him with one:D probably scare the crap out of him.:p and i don't think that you could be charged with anything other than having a good game of paint ball!!!:evil:
 
These folks WANT you to do something... That is why they were taunting the dude from the road and from the Air. The cops should have arrested them for Inciting a Riot or some other disorder type law. The police are there to ensure this kind of thing doesn't turn ugly and the fact that they left should be a crime.
 
In Colorado...

IT’S AGAINST THE LAW TO:
17. Interfere with hunters, including alarming or distracting prey; causing
prey to flee by light or noise; chasing prey by foot or vehicle; throwing
objects; making movement; threatening hunters; erecting barriers to deny
access to hunting areas and intentionally injecting yourself into the line of
fire. Violators face criminal prosecution and may have to pay damages to
the victim, as well as court costs.
Click to expand...

From the Colorado DoW Big Game Brochure.

It be nice to see these types prosecuted.
 
intentionally injecting yourself into the line of
fire. Violators face criminal prosecution and may have to pay damages to
the victim, as well as court costs.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO

So you can shoot 'em, then have them arrested, press charges, and also sue them for wrecking your day of hunting.

We need MORE laws like this!
 
Guy should be ashamed of himself anyway. Untreated gasoline exhaust, and oh what a carbon footprint.
Click to expand...

And those ultalights all use big displacement two strokes! God, the fumes, the unburnt hydrocarbons, probably killed 3 or 4 birds by themselves!

I might have been more apt to whittle away at the wingtips with T-Shot.
Click to expand...

Frankly, that'd be my first thought. LOL Probably why these idiots don't pull this stuff in Texas. Don't mess with Texas.
 
Texas § 62.0125. HARASSMENT OF HUNTERS, TRAPPERS, AND FISHERMEN. (a) This section may be cited as the Sportsman's Rights Act.
(b) In this section:
(1) "Wildlife" means all species of wild mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, or amphibians.
(2) "Process of hunting or catching" means any act directed at the lawful hunting or catching of wildlife, including camping or other acts preparatory to hunting or catching of wildlife that occur on land or water on which the affected person has the right or privilege of hunting or catching that wildlife.
(c) No person may intentionally interfere with another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife.
(d) No person may intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife for the purpose of disrupting a person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife.
(e) No person may enter or remain on public land or enter or remain on private land without the landowner's or his agent's consent if the person intends to disrupt another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife.
(f) This section does not apply to a peace officer of this state, a law enforcement officer of the United States, a member of the armed forces of the United States or of this state, or employees of the department or other state or federal agencies having statutory responsibility to manage wildlife or land during the time that the officer, member, or employee is in the actual discharge of official duties.
(g) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
(h) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the defendant's conduct is protected by the right to freedom of speech under the constitution of this state or the United States.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 731, § 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1985.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 700, § 1, eff. Sept. 11,
1993.
Click to expand...

Notice part h at the end. They can easily wiggle out of this with a hot rod lawyer, I'm betting.

This is from this site.... http://www.huntsab.org/hunter_harassment_laws.htm

Check these buttwipes out.... http://www.huntsab.org/ They sound like domestic terrorists. Their site talks about "bomb recipies" and such. The top of they page says something like "Tired of signs? We have guns". Sounds like there could be a shooting war if they come to MY marsh.
 
Hmm, well there it is right there in the Illinois statute:


Illinois (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 125/2 (Supp. 1996))ILLINOIS COMPILED STATUTES ANNOTATED
CHAPTER 720. CRIMINAL OFFENSES OFFENSES AGAINST PERSONS ACT 125. HUNTER INTERFERENCE PROHIBITION ACT125/1. Definitions § 1. Definitions. As used in this Act:
a. "Wild animal" means any wild creature the taking of which is authorized by the fish and game laws of the State.
b. "Taking", means the capture or killing of a wild animal and includes travel, camping, and other acts preparatory to taking which occur on lands or waters upon which the affected person has the right or privilege to take such wild animal.
P.A. 83-153, § 1, eff. Jan 1, 1984.
Formerly ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 61, p 301.
125/2. Interference with lawful taking of wild animal
§ 2. Any person who performs any of the following is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor:
(a) interferes with the lawful taking of a wild animal by another with intent to prevent the taking.
(b) disturbs or engages in an activity that will tend to disturb wild animals, with intent to prevent their lawful taking.
(c) disturbs another person who is engaged in the lawful taking of a wild animal or who is engaged in the process of taking, with intent to dissuade or otherwise prevent the taking.
(d) enters or remains upon public lands, or upon private lands without permission of the owner or his agent, or a lessee, with intent to violate this Section.
P.A. 83-153, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.
125/3. Failure to cease and desist
§ 3. Any person who knowingly performs any of the following acts is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(a) fails to obey the order of a peace officer to desist from conduct in violation of Section 2 of this Act if the officer observes such conduct, or has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has engaged in such conduct that day or that the person plans or intends to engage in such conduct that day on a specific premises.
(b) is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of Section 2. For purposes of this Section, a "second or subsequent violation" means a conviction under this Act within 2 years of a prior violation arising from a separate set of circumstances. The sentence of any person convicted of a second or subsequent violation shall include imprisonment for not less than 7 days. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation is not eligible for court supervision.
P.A. 83-153, § 3, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.
125/4. Injunctions--Damages
§ 4. (a) Any court may enjoin conduct which would be in violation of Section 2 of this Act upon petition by a person affected or who reasonably may be affected by such conduct, upon a showing that such conduct is threatened or that it has occurred on a particular premises in the past and that it is not unreasonable to expect that under similar circumstances it will be repeated.
(b) A court shall award all resulting costs and damages to any person adversely affected by a violation of Section 2, which may include an award for punitive damages. In addition to other items of special damage, the measure of damages may include expenditures of the affected person for license and permit fees, travel, guides, special equipment and supplies, to the extent that such expenditures were rendered futile by prevention of the taking of a wild animal.
(c) A court shall revoke, for a period of one year to 5 years, any Illinois hunting, fishing, or trapping privilege, license or permit of any person convicted of violating any provision of this Act.
P.A. 83-153, § 4, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.
Click to expand...

So I don't know why they weren't arrested in this case (or maybe they were, but they omitted that part in the video).


MC:

Notice part h at the end. They can easily wiggle out of this with a hot rod lawyer, I'm betting.
Click to expand...

Yes and no - actually the TX legislature, by making free speech an affirmative DEFENSE is actually trying to make it harder to defend against the charge. An affirmative defense must be proven by the Defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, after the prima facie case of the crime has been proven (beyond a reasonable doubt). So if it were NOT specifically labeled as an affirmative defense, then the defendant could argue that the prosecutor had the burden of proving - beyond a reasonable doubt - that the action in question was NOT an expression of free speech, as an element of the crime, in addition to the other elements. That would make it harder on the prosecutor.

And in any event, convicted or not, the LEO is gonna haul your stupid blissninny butt into the pokey until you post bail. A valid defense won't prevent that, if the LEO is on the hunter's side of things.
 
Dang, Doc, that's why I hate lawyers. They don't use simple logic. ROFL!

Whatever, but groups like that are kinda scary. I mean, these idiots are kinda radical. They don't care a nit for human life, not one nit, apparently. This "hunt sabotage" group sounds a bit like ALF or the goons that go around blowing up hummer dealerships in the NW. Now they're not going to have hummer dealerships to attack. Maybe I need to start carrying more firepower to the marsh on my duck hunts, toss the SKS in the van and a few hundred rounds in stripper clips. Non-lethal? I don't think so.
 
Now they're not going to have hummer dealerships to attack. Maybe I need to start carrying more firepower to the marsh on my duck hunts, toss the SKS in the van and a few hundred rounds in stripper clips. Non-lethal? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Now that made me LOL! Yeah, I'm sure they're coming after YOU now that the Hummer dealerships are closing! :)
 
Well, they have more time on their hands, now. LOL

On that site, they condone ALF tactics. ALF has killed people, mostly industry types for off the wall reasons, laboratory animal testing or such. I guess this might be a new attempt to put fourth ALF type tactics in the field against hunters? I know they're few and we are the many, but still, could be some incidents to read about in the paper this season, never know. I figure they'll all be in the more liberal parts of the world, though, where this scum resides, like maybe Austin....ROFL!
 
The top of they page says something like "Tired of signs? We have guns".
Click to expand...

Perfect, in a way.

Our society frowns on shooting people with signs. If they're pointing guns at people, it's open season on them legally, morally and in the eyes of the public at large.

Note to self: keep a .30-06 around when bird hunting. I'll bet I could hit them farther away than they could hit me, if they really think they can SHOOT me to keep me from getting some quail to eat.

That's what we're talking about, here: people who would be willing to KILL me because I'm going to harvest and eat a few birds (with a 95% season-to-season death rate from natural causes).
 
Last edited:
geeze... these guys are going to get themselves killed.... that hunter showed alot of restraint...Hunters(slobs) have shot and killed other hunter for less.... what about trespassers will be shot? wasn't that guy acting aggressively towards the hunter?.. the hunter could of acted in self defense....I might of... I would be scared that the next sweep was when I was going to get hurt by some crazy radical.... they have killed in the past.....

And wasn't standing in the road and yelling and basically just being there an act of disturbing the hunt? Even if the ultralight wasn't flying overhead the geese wouldn't of come with those people hanging out....It was obvious by their comments what they were up to.... even if they couldn't get the flier they could of gotten the others and confiscated the camera for evidence....

Did u read any of the comments? typical radical crap... someone says something and the shark guy comes back with a smart@$$ comment... not an actual defense for his actions...

I just hate it when a squirrels life is valued over mine...
 
Quote:
On that site, they condone ALF tactics
Wow, didn't catch that part - a bit frightening, yes. More so if you live in a place where they are concentrated.
Click to expand...

http://www.huntsab.org/about_us.htm

Go to this page. Down at the bottom it says....

We believe that every non-human life is important in its own right. We encourage, promote and support a Vegan lifestyle.

Though in no way affiliated with the Animal Liberation Front, we condone any action to save animal lives as long as those actions are conducted in accordance within A.L.F. guidelines:

1. To liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.

2. To inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.

3. To reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.

4. To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.

5. To analyze the ramifications of all proposed actions, and never apply generalizations when specific information is available.
Click to expand...

Note number four. They seem to value non-human life over human life just judging by past actions of ALF. They will bomb laboratories and farms and such with no apparent concern for who might be there when the bomb goes off or the fire starts.

More info on them at this site. Note that ALF and ELF (Earth Liberation Front formerly known as "Earth First") work hand in hand.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

This "huntsabotage" site is the first I've seen, however, to condone attacts on hunters. The mention of guns, not signs, is the scary part to me, knowing full well what these fruitloops have done in the past to various establishments. ALF/ELF is quite violent and their members are mentally deranged IMHO.
 
Last edited:
next time anyone expects this type of harassment, throw a can of wasp/hornet spray with your gear, the stream of this will go about 20 feet, when they get close hit them with it, works like pepper spray just cheaper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top