Good grief, if your going to make the ridiculous deterrent argument then why stop there? Why not life in prison for drunk driving? Why not 100k fine for speeding? Your argument is silly and nonsensicle. Any government agency can site deterrent as a reason for confiscating private property, then sell thegoods to finance their operations, can't you see an obvious conflict there? Maybe to many on this board, hunting w/o a license is a MAJOR infraction, but to the more reasonable members of society, we reconize that certain crimes are petty, and this is one.The problem that I pointed out, was with the lemming like mentality that we are fortunate not to lose these things, when in fact, we should look at it as ridiculous. Frankly, if you or anybody else considers hunting w/o a license asa crime worthy of losing your work truck, I truly feel sorry for you.


OK, Muley69,

First, I don't believe my thoughts to be rediculus. What I am stating therewas not how I think it should be, but moreover, why I think things are the way they are. In other words, why certain penalties are what they are. Now, your next statements about drunk driving and speeding are over the top. But I believe you meant that to be the case, in an attempt to make a point.

Now , the first thing we can agree on, is that there can be a problem with the idea of the confiscation of personal property by governmental agencies, to fund their own operations. With out strict guidelines, and outside policeing, there is the possibility of abuse. But by virtue of that possibility, we as citizens, with specific rights, have the right to council as our protection. Also, agencies have the duty to make known the laws of their agency, to the common public. Now, as I have said before, if you do not break the law, you have nothing to worry about. Also, I have heard and read of infractions where the confiscation of all of the hunters personal items used in the infraction was applicable, but the officers only confiscated a small portion of what was allowable. I can bet that there are also times when the reverse is true, but I believe the system operates the best it can. That the officers do the best they can. But, no system is perfect, so we work with what we have.

And finally, to address your statement about minor violations and a lemming like mentality, you are correct sir that NO MINOR VIOLATION SHOULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF A VEHICLE. And they don't. Not in this situation, or any other minor violation, so the argument is moot. I said it earlier, that hunting without a license would not make anyone lose their vehicle, so there is no lemming mentality here. People can be thankful that there was not a worse violation, such as poaching which could lead to that type of loss, ( it does not have to , but it could ), and I think that is closer to the thought process here.

But thank you for an intersesting discussion on this matter. But I feel like we havetaken overanother mans thread, and I hate it when that happens, so I will let the discussion of this end here and give my fellow hunter his thread back.

And for my rudeness in my part of taking over this thread I offer my apologies.

God Bless