+1. I think as a professional, you need to be doing it better and cleaner than the next guy. As a pro, you have far less room for error. That means actually reading the regs - regardless how long or confusing they may seem - and asking questions if something is unclear. In the California incident, would it have been too difficult to find out that no baiting was allowed? That's hardly an obscure rule.

As far as doing the right thing and pleading guilty, I think the only reason he did so is because this is another strike for him and he knows it. After the fiasco in CA, where he was revoked for big game hunting, he knows he's using up his 9 lives. For example, when he got caught in CA, he essentially said the same thing: "I would never knowingly violate any wildlife laws...I embrace the hunting lifestyle" But if memory serves, he didn't actually admit guilt, though, pleading 'No Contest' instead.

I think he's only pleading guilty this time because he's trying to be conciliatory - not because he's showing any remorse. As for paying the fine, I seriously doubt there are any wildlife fine in existence that's going to put much of a crimp in this guys' finances.

To me, Ted is more interested in "embracing" whatever's best for Ted - not what's best for the "lifestyle," the sport, conservation, or other hunters.

Just my opinion