poaching

[gonzodemon]

We have had a lot of debate on poaching and we do not all agree but I just wanted to put this one to you to think about. If a man shoots a deer illegaly it is wrong. I think we all at least agree on that point. Its just the level of punishment we disagree on. But why is it that an individual or a ranch can build a fence for the sole purpose of keeping deer from ranging free. This means that they took away every hunters right to hunt these animals unless he or she can afford to pay the hefty price that they impose. not only do the deer imediatly fenced become unhuntable by the general public but all of their offspring do as well. All of the surrounding properties that normaly would have been freaquented by those animals now are void of the quality and quantity of game that would have normaly been there. In all fairness these animals are as good as dead to those of us who hunt on land that might have been freaquented by any animal now fenced in. Why do we throw the book at an individual who shoots a deer illegaly but at the same time we say and do nothing to the person or persons who imprison wild animals for the purpose of keeping you and I from hunting them unless we pay them. If a man is a poacher if he shoots one deer illegaly and removes that deer from the wild and that deer is no longer huntable by you or I. then what shall we call a person or persons who take tousands of deer imprison them for the purpose of killing them. remember this. These ranches receive special acceptions to game laws that the general public does not. They may kill more bucks and does per person than the normal local law allows. They may hunt in extended seasons that last months longer than general public seasons. They may also hunt by means deamed illegal for the general public.........sounds like legalised poaching to me. I think these places are a far worse stain on hunting than any one person could ever be for shooting an illegal deer. We go out of our way to condimn any individual who comits a poaching crime but we look the other way when our states help make it legal as long as you have the money to build a twelve foot tall fence and buy a few permits. I am in Texas and this is what I see in my state if your state has differant laws on high fence opperations let me know.

[stork]

I believe in Wisconsin the high fencers must follow the same laws as everyone else unless they own the deer. That would mean that that they are not public proberty but private property. It has been reduced to "Butchering" and not hunting persay.

[kevin1]

ORIGINAL: gonzodemon

If a man is a poacher if he shoots one deer illegaly and removes that deer from the wild and that deer is no longer huntable by you or I. then what shall we call a person or persons who take tousands of deer imprison them for the purpose of killing them.

Depending on what state it occurs in they're usually called either "ranchers" or "breeders" , a sick joke in both cases . [:'(]

By law they can purchase what would ordinarily be considered a wild animal and magically transmute it into "livestock" . Funny thing is that it isn't usually legal to hunt livestock in most states , most in fact have humane slaughter laws that prevent it . They recently outlawed such places in my state( ) , thereby joining the other 14 states that have come to their senses regarding this abomination . I'm sure it will come down to a dogfight in the Legislature before it's over , but the deer pimps will lose in the end , fortunately for us there just aren't enough of them here that they have the clout to fight . Good riddance !

[PKnTX]

I'm not for high fenced type hunting and
not just because I can't afford it (really,
I mean it). The fact is land owners are
allowed to fence their property as they
see fit. The containment of otherwise
wild animals would be considered by the
land owner an incidental consequence of
that right (incidental and VERY profitable).
I don't have an answer but do consider this
much more acceptable than imposing QAM
(Quality Antler Managment) on all hunters
and all hunting lands. As long as ego driven
people will pay big bucks for, well you know,
QAM will be practiced somewhere. I hope it
stays behind a fence.
As for shooting deer illegally, that's cut and
dry wrong.

God bless,
PK

[CalHunter]

If a man shoots a deer illegaly it is wrong. I think we all at least agree on that point. Its just the level of punishment we disagree on.

This is a very difficult area to reach conscensus on gonzodemon. Most people who only know what is written in a news story or broadcast tend to want the maximum punishment for a crime that was sensational enough to make the news and sounds bad to them. If you learn the rest of the story (such as you knowing your friend and the unfortunate aftermath), you quickly develop a different perspective and opinion on what level of punishment is appropriate.

We all believe a punishment should be appropriate for the crime committed. And we all have seen various crimes wherein the punishment was way too lenient. After a while of only seeing and hearing about these sensational cases which often do have people getting too lenient of a punishment or getting off scot-free (like OJ), people get hardened and are not as willing to individually consider what punishment is appropriate for what crime.

I've already posted my opinion on your friend's punishment (I thought it was wrong to seize his truck) and why I reached that conclusion (takes away his ability to earn money to pay fines, etc.). I know personally that a lot of effort goes into determining what punishment is appropriate for the crimes committed and successfully prosecuted in California. I assume (but don't know) that other states have some similar method for determining appropriate punishments for individuals convicted of crimes.

As for you high fence opinion, we may not like high fence operations BUT they are legal (in some states and not in other states). Morally, we may think a law authorizing such a practice is wrong and unethical but it is still legal. Law Enforcement and the courts are charged with enforcing the laws that are on the books, not what we think should be the law. Individually, we are all responsible for enforcing upon ourselves what we think is ethical and moral behavior.

[gonzodemon]

In Texas it is a crime to wilfuly interupt,impede, or in any way interfear with a person lawfuly engaged in a hunting act. By placing high fences that IMPEDE deer from moving from property to property is this not interfearing with other hunters. In my opinion it is a big money issue. The big ranches have money and can do as they please. its always been that way and i guess it always will.

[underdog]

gonzo, You're pi$$in in the wind, to borrow a phrase from Jerry Jeff. Texas leads the way in the privatization of wildlife. Multi-millionaire ranchers and commissioners have the legislature in their pocket.

If you can't pay fair market value in Tejas and want to hunt, you'd best move West to where there are still some public lands.

[NY Bowhunter]

Why do we throw the book at an individual who shoots a deer illegaly but at the same time we say and do nothing to the person or persons who imprison wild animals for the purpose of keeping you and I from hunting them unless we pay them.

I think they both should be hung by their nuts equally!

[bawanajim]

ORIGINAL: NY Bowhunter

I think they both should be hung by their nuts equally!

Do you think anyone that shoots a deer in a pen has NUTS AS long as they got some bucks who cares!!!!!!

[mr-pirk]

Gonzo Demon your thread kind of puts me in mind of VC1111's thread about "robodeer" and it's impliclations, it might be intresting read for you if it hasn't dropped off the calender year of the search engine.

Bawana Jim, just what does "being hung by the nuts" mean to you? In other-words, just how harsh of punishment would you endorse? The death penilty for abusing the tagging process or a simple "Don't do it again and you are sent on your way".
I don't endorse either, but where do you stand?

Thanks
Mr-Pirk