Anyway, I have hunted for 40 years in the north east and we don't allow hunting over bait, becasue it is not sporting.
LOL, I just love the notion of "sporting" and "fair chase" rules/laws. I am pretty sure the prey don't consider it to be sporting from them to be shot by a hunter or that the use of implements beyond those that are biological are part of fair chase.
I know y'all can't use bait, but that doesn't stop you from harvesting deer from agricultural fields or by sources of water (at least in some NE states). Some of the NE states will certainly let you plant a food plot that you can use for hunting deer. So, you are still baiting if you use these areas, but your system of baiting is just longer term or already in place.
TN was on the radio today talking about the Alaska charges, his claim was that his lawyer who was also an outfitter as well as the judge were unaware of the obscure law and that the charges were pressed by the feds whose land it was on. He also said that so far as they could tell no one else had ever been charged with that crime. I must say that in my life I have never heard of any law that said if your projectile hits an animal you must punch your tag.
More excuses by TN? In CA, the guide was blamed as well. So what TN is saying is that yet again he has hired inept people to handle his legal responsibilities and that they yet again failed to take care of him. You have to wonder just what sort of guides he hires when they are not up on the law and if his guides or lawyer has actually spent any time actually reading and understanding the laws in the states where he hunts. Of course what this is really telling is that TN isn't bothering to review the laws himself either.
As for the judge supposedly not being familiar with the law, that isn't a big surprise. It isn't likely for any judge to have an eidetic memory for the totality of all of the laws which are covered by his court. Even if he had read the law at one time, if it hasn't been brought up in his/her court, he may not remember it.
So none of those folks knows of any other persons prosecuted under that "obscure" law? So what? Being the first or the first in memory isn't really relevant to anything concerning the validity of the law. Of course, most hunters don't broadcast their hunting transgression via a hunting show on TV that can be viewed and reviewed at leisure by law enforcement.
So why don't more folks know of the law? Apparently, it is a new law, only 4 or 5 years old.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...jail-black-bear-killing-alaska_n_1446974.html So I think the notion of the law being obscure is quite misleading. In this case, "obscure" just means that none of the folks involved were current on recent changes in the relevant hunting laws.
Also, TN's lawyer isn't a guide in Alaska. He is an Assistant Guide. The requirements to be an assistant guide do not stipulate having an extensive knowledge of the state's hunting laws. It just means that you are an adult with X amount of hunting experience in Alaska, not a criminal, have first aid training, are going to be employed by a guide and have paid the license fee. So the notion that TN's lawyer is a "guide" and wasn't familiar with the law isn't a surprise. Assistant Guides are required to know the law in order to get a license to be an Assistant Guide.
http://commerce.alaska.gov/occ/pub/gui4009.pdf An assistant guide is actually the 2nd level BELOW being a Registered Guide.
It must be embarrassing to publically note that you are an Assistant Guide in Alaska and a lawyer by trade, but haven't kept track of the legal aspects pertaining to guiding. You would think a lawyer would do a better job.
