Poachers are the worst

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerseykris

Jerseykris

Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
91
Location
New Jersey
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-thrill-police-say/?utm_term=.f67ed79727bf

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-of-pacific-northwest-wildlife-poaching-ring/

This is one of the worst cases of organized poaching I've read about in a long time. Just sickening.
They don't make a book big enough to throw at these guys.
I know we've all been there where an occasional game warden/ranger is doing the rounds for the sole purpose of busting people's ball$, but stories like this reenforce (to me anyway) the need for the rest of us to work with them when we catch wind of stuff like this going on.
 
The worst part about this outrage is this sentence. "Haynes and Martin were among the 11 defendants charged this week in Wasco County, Ore., with misdemeanors related to the poaching,"
If Oregon thinks the crimes were so terrible, why not change its laws to make them felonies? Misdemeanor fines and penalties go nowhere when it comes to discouraging these abuses. At least Washington has some of these crimes categorized as felonies which may be why these creeps traveled to Oregon to commit mayhem.
 
A misdemeanor just isn't enough. Maybe this episode will be the impetus for stronger penalties in such cases going forward. Surely you could get lawmakers behind stronger penalties for stuff like this.
 
Stuff like this makes me sick. I have to preface this by saying that I absolutely support the rights of hunters and am, in no way anti-hunting but I personally just can't shoot at living targets. I still like my steaks rare but I get those in nice little hygienic packages from the grocery store where someone has already done the dirty work for me:)

Seeing animals slaughtered for fun is a completely different story. Snuffing out an animal's existence either for that momentary thrill or simply for a trophy while the rest of the animal is left to rot is despicable IMHO. Of course there are exceptions for things like nuisance animals etc. Even then, I personally can't bring myself to do it and am glad there are other folks who can.
 
When I lived out West, this type of crime would have your gun, truck, and anything else used in the crime confiscated, a huge fine, jail time and a lifetime hunting ban
 
Have you guys checked the max penalties for the misdemeanors? Just because it's a misdemeanor doesn't mean it doesn't have some good jail time. Some misdemeanors in Maryland carry a max of 10 years. IF the misdemeanor carries more than 12 months of possible incarceration, if found guilty they are done owning firearms. ;) Check question C on the Federal 4473 form.

Also, in Oregon they have very stiff fines for poachers, and are allowed to sue the poachers in addition to the fines.

WHY is that important?

Because IF lets say a judge or a jury in a Criminal Court says case dismissed or not guilty, the state can still go to Civil Court against the poachers, and the threshold for proof in a civil action is not "reasonable doubt"; it's a "preponderance of evidence", and the rules of evidence are more lax. :thumbup:

Here's some of what the state can go after:

The State Fish and Wildlife Commission may institute suit for the recovery of damages for the unlawful taking or killing of any of the wildlife referred to in subsection (2) of this section that are the property of the state.

(2)(a) The damages referred to in subsection (1) of this section are as follows:

(A) Each game mammal other than moose, mountain sheep, mountain goat, elk, gray wolf, black bear, cougar or silver gray squirrel, or deer or antelope described in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of this paragraph, $1,000.

(B) Each moose, mountain sheep or mountain goat, other than those described in subparagraphs (F), (G) and (H) of this paragraph, $10,000.

(C) Each elk, other than those described in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph, $5,000.

(D) Each deer with at least four points on one antler, gray wolf, black bear or cougar, $7,500.

(E) Each antelope with at least one horn equal to or greater than 14 inches, $7,500.

(F) Each moose with antlers, $50,000.

(G) Each mountain sheep that has at least one horn equal to or greater than one half curl, $50,000.

(H) Each mountain goat that has at least one horn equal to or greater than six inches, $50,000.

(I) Each elk with at least six points on one antler, $15,000.

So lets say of the 27 deer heads found in these fools' back yard..., say none of them were bucks, that would still be $27,000 for the deer alone they would have to pay....and in a civil judgement, the state could seize and sell their vehicles, and garnish their wages.

Yeah, I'd like to see something like this elevated to "felony" status, but it by no means is a slap-on-the-wrist in Oregon.

LD
 
Loyalist Dave said:
Have you guys checked the max penalties for the misdemeanors? Just because it's a misdemeanor doesn't mean it doesn't have some good jail time. Some misdemeanors in Maryland carry a max of 10 years. IF the misdemeanor carries more than 12 months of possible incarceration, if found guilty they are done owning firearms. ;) Check question C on the Federal 4473 form.

Also, in Oregon they have very stiff fines for poachers, and are allowed to sue the poachers in addition to the fines.

WHY is that important?

Because IF lets say a judge or a jury in a Criminal Court says case dismissed or not guilty, the state can still go to Civil Court against the poachers, and the threshold for proof in a civil action is not "reasonable doubt"; it's a "preponderance of evidence", and the rules of evidence are more lax. :thumbup:

Here's some of what the state can go after:

The State Fish and Wildlife Commission may institute suit for the recovery of damages for the unlawful taking or killing of any of the wildlife referred to in subsection (2) of this section that are the property of the state.

(2)(a) The damages referred to in subsection (1) of this section are as follows:

(A) Each game mammal other than moose, mountain sheep, mountain goat, elk, gray wolf, black bear, cougar or silver gray squirrel, or deer or antelope described in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of this paragraph, $1,000.

(B) Each moose, mountain sheep or mountain goat, other than those described in subparagraphs (F), (G) and (H) of this paragraph, $10,000.

(C) Each elk, other than those described in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph, $5,000.

(D) Each deer with at least four points on one antler, gray wolf, black bear or cougar, $7,500.

(E) Each antelope with at least one horn equal to or greater than 14 inches, $7,500.

(F) Each moose with antlers, $50,000.

(G) Each mountain sheep that has at least one horn equal to or greater than one half curl, $50,000.

(H) Each mountain goat that has at least one horn equal to or greater than six inches, $50,000.

(I) Each elk with at least six points on one antler, $15,000.

So lets say of the 27 deer heads found in these fools' back yard..., say none of them were bucks, that would still be $27,000 for the deer alone they would have to pay....and in a civil judgement, the state could seize and sell their vehicles, and garnish their wages.

Yeah, I'd like to see something like this elevated to "felony" status, but it my no means is a slap-on-the-wrist in Oregon.

LD
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great information!! I wish there was more felony application for crimes like this, but in these extreme cases, the misdemeanors can really start to rack up based on what you've posted here.
 
Of Course, it still depends on somebody at the state level having the intestinal fortitude and tenacity to go after such folks, and to stick with it for several years to a final outcome. Alas, we tend to be less than vigilant in observing what our government servants do, after the charges are made. :uhoh:

LD
 
George P said:
While not game animals, there was a case a while ago in Reno where folks were sniping and killing the feral "wild" horses for fun

http://www.wildhorsespirit.org/98_xmas_shootings.htm

Some were ex-Marines
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, bleeding hearts have deemed the feral horses and burros in the western states as "wild" horses and even got the feds to protect them. These feral animals foul and destroy water sources in desert areas and threaten the existence of native bighorn sheep among other native wildlife. It is no different than an imaginary scenario where the feds might protect "wild" cats or dogs.
However, that doesn't mean they should be shot for fun. In the movie "The Misfits" with Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe they rounded up feral horses to take them to slaughter houses to be sold for meat etc.
 
People like this disgust me,and I hope the get the maximum sentences. I was taught growing up if you kill it you eat it....unless it's a neussence animal such as coons going after the chickens or woodchucks undermining the garage foundation. I hate the thought of killing something for no reason at all other than to take it's life, especially if you let them suffer. .....
 
Poaching is horrible any way you look at it. I deal with poachers every year and unfortunately our local game wardens are not concerned with deer season. Water fowl poaching is watched and prosecuted much more heavily.

These guys take it to a new level. I hope they get indicted for everything they have done and convicted. Get this trash out of the woods.
 
These are not poacher. A poacher is a hunter who does not have the licence to do what is doing, but is hunting nonetheless, for whatever reason.

These are killing for fun, they are not hunting. They come from a background of entitled brats, without any discipline since they were toddlers, with no respect for anyone or anything, firm in their belief that everything including the sun is revolving around their belly button.

It's not a poaching problem, it's a society problem, the same problem that is putting half of the "civilized" world upside down culturally...
 
Meaning no offense, I vehemently disagree with calling a poacher a hunter. That may be the way you see it, but it is most assuredly NOT the way I see it. A poacher is a criminal, period. A hunter is a sportsman who hunts both legally and ethically. At least that's the way it is in my book. Poacher and hunter should never be used in the same sentence.
 
kscharlie said:
Meaning no offense, I vehemently disagree with calling a poacher a hunter. That may be the way you see it, but it is most assuredly NOT the way I see it. A poacher is a criminal, period. A hunter is a sportsman who hunts both legally and ethically. At least that's the way it is in my book. Poacher and hunter should never be used in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

When you have villagers whose meager crops have been raided and destroyed by buffalo, elephant or other animals, who cannot get a hunting license because the paperwork is simply impossible for them to get, and you find one who managed to kill an impala or a dikdik to feed his family of fifteen or twenty people going from a suckling baby to a toothless eighty years old grandma... For the law, that guy is a poacher. For me, he's just a hunter trying to stay alive - and for getting a dikdik with one of these feeble bows they have, I give him a high five, because that takes some skills.

That has nothing to do with the bandits going after elephants with AKs. And poor guys like the villager above vastly outnumber the latter... Reality is not the same everywhere, and between white and black there are many nuances.
 
Nuances: During the Depression of the 1930s, a fair number of rural people had no fresh-killed venison--during hunting season.. Unsafe to be in the woods with those "amachoors" from the city. The rest of the year, however...

But they ate what they killed. Nothing was wasted.

A line from a song of that era: "Ten-cent cotton and forty-cent meat; how in the heck can a poor man eat?"
 
I agree with all of you in that the term "poacher" can be a nuanced label.

Real, legitimate hunters are clearly not poachers. But hunters can commit an 'act of poaching', based on some of the reasons given above (shoots an animal out of season for food, or disposed of some pests or dangerous animals, maybe just some technical violation)

But I think we can look at those individual situations, as experienced & ethical hunters, and can judge them appropriately, without necessarily labeling that individual as a "poacher"

But we all know the difference between those situations and what we're talking about here.

When we collectively refer to someone or label them as a "Poacher" and the connotations that go with that, we tend to be talking about habitual offenders. In the case of these guys, we'd probably all agree they're the worst of the worst. Savages might be a more appropriate word.
 
Kano383 said:
When you have villagers whose meager crops have been raided and destroyed by buffalo, elephant or other animals, who cannot get a hunting license because the paperwork is simply impossible for them to get, and you find one who managed to kill an impala or a dikdik to feed his family of fifteen or twenty people going from a suckling baby to a toothless eighty years old grandma... For the law, that guy is a poacher. For me, he's just a hunter trying to stay alive - and for getting a dikdik with one of these feeble bows they have, I give him a high five, because that takes some skills.

That has nothing to do with the bandits going after elephants with AKs. And poor guys like the villager above vastly outnumber the latter... Reality is not the same everywhere, and between white and black there are many nuances.
Click to expand...

As is being mentioned, there are nuances. There is also perspective. I noticed in your post that you are from Africa. Your perspective of a hunter and mine are different. I taught hunter safety classes for a good number of years, and we always had discussion regarding poaching and hunter ethics. I approached the issue of "poaching" as a person who illegally took and possessed game without necessity. I would never condemn a person, whether here in the U.S. or there in Africa, who took any animal in order to feed themselves, their family or their village.

I see your point and I agree with it as far as it goes. However, I still find it objectionable to refer to a poacher as a hunter. We here in the states are pretty much insulated by the utter poverty and starvation that occurs in Africa. Yes, we have some of that here, but not on the same scale. There are any number of folks here who will kill a deer out of season, or without a license because they cannot afford it, all in an effort to feed their family. I hold no ill will towards these folks.
 
I remember a story told by one of my White County neighbors of when he had a homeless family living in one of the old farm houses on his property. The guy's father had gone into the house and opened the refrigerator and saw that it was empty. The father immediately left the house got into his son's truck and went and shot a whitetail deer – out of season and with a centerfire rifle which at that time was illegal to use for harvesting deer in the state of Indiana. The story goes that the woman of the family went so far as to boil the bones for soup. As near as I can tell, that story comes from the late 50s/ early 60s.

Bottom line, the old man did harvest venison in violation of the state's fishing game laws. But I cannot in all honesty say that I see that as poaching.

I can point out another "gentleman" that scrupulously obeys the fish and game laws while harvesting deer yet when he goes back to Illinois all that he takes back is a head with antlers. The one time, my dad allowed him to hunt here he didn't even bother to gut the animal and by the time my brother ran across the corpse the meat had already been ruined. While the Indiana Conservation Office doesn't agree with me that is the guy that is a poacher for he is surely not a hunter.

As my late uncle used to say, it's a matter of situation and terrain…Meaning of course, the labels mean nothing without the back story. The people described in the OP… I honestly believe it should be legalized to set off an area where these perverted <expletive deleted> can run around with rifles and shoot each other then send the survivor to a gurney and inject enough potassium chloride to about five times the lethal dose. And even that would be too good for him!

(My name is Selena and I am a ranter.)
 
Last edited:
Ow, I imagine that many of us here agree with you.

Now for the flip side: Some years back during mule deer season in Texas, I was driving home from my back-country hunt camp. Somebody had killed a nice 5x5 buck--and left the head by the side of the road. I've no clue as to the thought process of the shooter.
 
Kano383 said:
Reality is not the same everywhere, and between white and black there are many nuances.
Click to expand...

No not really...., only in the minds of some people....particularly defense lawyers....

NEVER say a poacher is a type of hunter. Sorry, it blurrs the two activities in the minds of masses and those that make the laws. While both involve killing an animal, the former is done when it's illegal and not when it's for survival. You must have some odd game wardens where you are, as where I am when folks were taking deer without a license, or by the wrong method, if the warden knew they were taking it for food and not going on welfare..., they chose to not enforce the regulation.

LD
 
Art Eatman said:
Ow, I imagine that many of us here agree with you.

Now for the flip side: Some years back during mule deer season in Texas, I was driving home from my back-country hunt camp. Somebody had killed a nice 5x5 buck--and left the head by the side of the road. I've no clue as to the thought process of the shooter.
Click to expand...

With all due respect Mr Eatman, if not for a retired employee we would probably discard the heads as well. While I am quite fond of molasses cured venison hams, venison tenderloin and the jerky made from the rest of the meat… Not to mention my sister-in-law tanning the hides for her projects, this person is the only one we know that actually eats the brains. While we use most of the harvested deer, we have yet to find a use for the hooves or the head.

My uncle would call leaving what we cannot use a tribute to those creatures that make their living by dining on what others leave behind. While I will admit I've never been to Texas for any length of time knowing how frugal nature tends to be I have to assume there are scavengers in that state as well. This is still no excuse to leave what can be eaten by our own species behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hps1
  • Locked
Coyote(s) Attack Man and 6 YO Boy in Chicago
Replies
11
Views
928
DocRock
DocRock
C
  • Locked
N Y Times Opinion: It's Too Late to Ban Assault Weapons
Replies
22
Views
1K
Odd Job
Odd Job
Back
Top