Poachers

[NuffDaddy]

Living off the land is your right as a citizen, but it is the right of every other citizen, as well. So, if you are being irresponsible with that right, it would fall on government shoulders to prevent you from infringing on the other citizens' rights... how that is done is beyond me.

X2
Most people aren't responsible enough to manage it themselves. That's why we need game laws.

Don't break them and you don't have to worry about a felony...Not that hard.

[NuffDaddy]

Living off the land is your right as a citizen, but it is the right of every other citizen, as well. So, if you are being irresponsible with that right, it would fall on government shoulders to prevent you from infringing on the other citizens' rights... how that is done is beyond me.

Which goes to my argument of "they are the state's critters, and as such, I should be able to send them a bill when one of their deer or geese damages my vehicle or property".

I'm pretty sure they are everyone's property...Not the states. They just enforce the laws.

[The Duck Hammer]

Living off the land is your right as a citizen, but it is the right of every other citizen, as well. So, if you are being irresponsible with that right, it would fall on government shoulders to prevent you from infringing on the other citizens' rights... how that is done is beyond me.

Which goes to my argument of "they are the state's critters, and as such, I should be able to send them a bill when one of their deer or geese damages my vehicle or property".

I'm pretty sure they are everyone's property...Not the states. They just enforce the laws.

They clearly don't belong to me cause I can go drop one of my cows any time I want to but if I pop a deer in my yard I'm getting fined and they're taking it away. Assa's right, if they want to claim them as their property, they need to man the fuck up and take responsibility for them other than just to make money.

[Redbeard]

Wonder if they were doing it to have something to eat?

Does it matter as long as they were going to eat it anyway?

Not at all. As long as it doesn't go in the ditch I couldn't care less what you kill or when you kill it.

Now, do you mean them and their family to eat, or to get eaten in general?

We as a population have proven we cannot be trusted with harvesting of animals. We nearly eradicated all game animals from this country at one point. So, IMO there does need to be some guidance as to how many and when something can be shot.

ill agree with this. However to be brought up on felony charges is ludicrous

[NuffDaddy]

Living off the land is your right as a citizen, but it is the right of every other citizen, as well. So, if you are being irresponsible with that right, it would fall on government shoulders to prevent you from infringing on the other citizens' rights... how that is done is beyond me.

Which goes to my argument of "they are the state's critters, and as such, I should be able to send them a bill when one of their deer or geese damages my vehicle or property".

I'm pretty sure they are everyone's property...Not the states. They just enforce the laws.

They clearly don't belong to me cause I can go drop one of my cows any time I want to but if I pop a deer in my yard I'm getting fined and they're taking it away. Assa's right, if they want to claim them as their property, they need to man the fuck up and take responsibility for them other than just to make money.

Guess it's a grey line. I like to believe that the public land and animals belong to the people. But it needs to be regulated by the state because jack asses like the ones in the OP don't care.

Would you go out and butcher a milk cow for the fun of it? Or a laying hen? Probably not, because you know how to manage it to get the most bang for your buck.

[The Duck Hammer]

Would you go out and butcher a milk cow for the fun of it? Or a laying hen? Probably not, because you know how to manage it to get the most bang for your buck.

No I wouldn't but we do butcher a couple cows a year to eat. If you don't have the land or money to do that, wild animals are your next thing to go to. In some instances I understand the states laws but when it comes to there being minimum rack requirements for somebody to kill a buck that's bullshit. Its there and we could use the meat but since some jackass biologist thinks it needs to be bigger I cant kill it. Drives me fucking insane.

[Olly]

Poaching is bad without a doubt. We all own the animals together and I totally agree with laws that stop one guy from totally whiping out animals we all enjoy hunting.

Automatic felony for killing a few ducks? Stupid.

Should be case by base. Guy kills a duck in the park? Misdemeanor. Guy goes out and kills thousands of ducks on and off season? Felony.

[NuffDaddy]

Would you go out and butcher a milk cow for the fun of it? Or a laying hen? Probably not, because you know how to manage it to get the most bang for your buck.

No I wouldn't but we do butcher a couple cows a year to eat. If you don't have the land or money to do that, wild animals are your next thing to go to. In some instances I understand the states laws but when it comes to there being minimum rack requirements for somebody to kill a buck that's bullshit. Its there and we could use the meat but since some jackass biologist thinks it needs to be bigger I cant kill it. Drives me fucking insane.

Deer management is getting a little out of hand. But all the APRs that are being set around here are on a democratic basis. Not based off what some guy in a suit thinks.

[assateague]

Guess it's a grey line. I like to believe that the public land and animals belong to the people. But it needs to be regulated by the state because jack asses like the ones in the OP don't care.

Would you go out and butcher a milk cow for the fun of it? Or a laying hen? Probably not, because you know how to manage it to get the most bang for your buck.

Ain't nothing gray about it.

Who do I have to pay to hunt them?
Who sets the regulations about hunting them?
Who writes me a ticket?
Who gets the money?
Who tells me when I can hunt them?
Who tells me where I can hunt them?
Who tells me what I can hunt them with?


Not a damn thing gray about it. They want to exercise the control and the privilege without assuming a damn bit of the responsibility. And that's bullshit. They want to be in charge of them? Fine. Then I send them a bill when one jumps out in front of my Jeep, or eats my garden one night. To claim control without assuming responsibility is weak sauce.

How about this:

I'm allowed to kill unlimited does and 10 bucks a year. Instead of killing them, I catch one of each, and then raise babies on my farm. Then those deer are no longer "managed" by the state, and I can do what I please, right? Nope, because I'm not allowed to catch them or raise them. Why can't I catch a couple buffleheads, clip their wings, and raise all the wild ducks I want? By their very definition, they aren't "wild" anymore, and what do they care if I catch 2 or kill 6? It's all a money-making proposition, nothing more. And if you believe that states are in it for the "good of the wildlife" rather than the money, then you're a fool. You need to look no further than the antler restrictions Hammer noted. Is that for "the good of the animals", or is it to have a deer herd which will draw hunters and generate revenue? If they want to "manage" all the public land they control, more power to them. But to tell a landowner that he may not shoot a deer which is on his property is just silly, from a logical perspective, if you're trying to argue that "we" own the wildlife.

[3legged_lab]

Guess it's a grey line. I like to believe that the public land and animals belong to the people. But it needs to be regulated by the state because jack asses like the ones in the OP don't care.

Would you go out and butcher a milk cow for the fun of it? Or a laying hen? Probably not, because you know how to manage it to get the most bang for your buck.

Ain't nothing gray about it.

Who do I have to pay to hunt them?
Who sets the regulations about hunting them?
Who writes me a ticket?
Who gets the money?
Who tells me when I can hunt them?
Who tells me where I can hunt them?
Who tells me what I can hunt them with?


Not a damn thing gray about it. They want to exercise the control and the privilege without assuming a damn bit of the responsibility. And that's bullshit. They want to be in charge of them? Fine. Then I send them a bill when one jumps out in front of my Jeep, or eats my garden one night. To claim control without assuming responsibility is weak sauce.

How about this:

I'm allowed to kill unlimited does and 10 bucks a year. Instead of killing them, I catch one of each, and then raise babies on my farm. Then those deer are no longer "managed" by the state, and I can do what I please, right? Nope, because I'm not allowed to catch them or raise them. Why can't I catch a couple buffleheads, clip their wings, and raise all the wild ducks I want? By their very definition, they aren't "wild" anymore, and what do they care if I catch 2 or kill 6? It's all a money-making proposition, nothing more. And if you believe that states are in it for the "good of the wildlife" rather than the money, then you're a fool. You need to look no further than the antler restrictions Hammer noted. Is that for "the good of the animals", or is it to have a deer herd which will draw hunters and generate revenue? If they want to "manage" all the public land they control, more power to them. But to tell a landowner that he may not shoot a deer which is on his property is just silly, from a logical perspective, if you're trying to argue that "we" own the wildlife.

Tough to argue with that logic.

[rebelp74]

Guess it's a grey line. I like to believe that the public land and animals belong to the people. But it needs to be regulated by the state because jack asses like the ones in the OP don't care.

Would you go out and butcher a milk cow for the fun of it? Or a laying hen? Probably not, because you know how to manage it to get the most bang for your buck.

Ain't nothing gray about it.

Who do I have to pay to hunt them?
Who sets the regulations about hunting them?
Who writes me a ticket?
Who gets the money?
Who tells me when I can hunt them?
Who tells me where I can hunt them?
Who tells me what I can hunt them with?


Not a damn thing gray about it. They want to exercise the control and the privilege without assuming a damn bit of the responsibility. And that's bullshit. They want to be in charge of them? Fine. Then I send them a bill when one jumps out in front of my Jeep, or eats my garden one night. To claim control without assuming responsibility is weak sauce.

How about this:

I'm allowed to kill unlimited does and 10 bucks a year. Instead of killing them, I catch one of each, and then raise babies on my farm. Then those deer are no longer "managed" by the state, and I can do what I please, right? Nope, because I'm not allowed to catch them or raise them. Why can't I catch a couple buffleheads, clip their wings, and raise all the wild ducks I want? By their very definition, they aren't "wild" anymore, and what do they care if I catch 2 or kill 6? It's all a money-making proposition, nothing more. And if you believe that states are in it for the "good of the wildlife" rather than the money, then you're a fool. You need to look no further than the antler restrictions Hammer noted. Is that for "the good of the animals", or is it to have a deer herd which will draw hunters and generate revenue? If they want to "manage" all the public land they control, more power to them. But to tell a landowner that he may not shoot a deer which is on his property is just silly, from a logical perspective, if you're trying to argue that "we" own the wildlife.

Amen brother!

[NuffDaddy]

APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

[Olly]

Fuck me I agree with NuffDaddy.

[rebelp74]

Anarchy may not be the key but neither is big government. As for the waterfowl regs, as well as other game, the studies are made by federal or state wildlife and fisheries biologists. While they may hunt, they're not what I'd consider a group of hunters that do studies.

[NuffDaddy]

Anarchy may not be the key but neither is big government. As for the waterfowl regs, as well as other game, the studies are made by federal or state wildlife and fisheries biologists. While they may hunt, they're not what I'd consider a group of hunters that do studies.

No. Government is out of control. But the game side is probably their best side.
As I said, the government sets the flyway guidelines, but the states set the dates and bag limits within those guidelines. And that is determined by volunteers. I don't know exactly how the process works though.

[rebelp74]

Anarchy may not be the key but neither is big government. As for the waterfowl regs, as well as other game, the studies are made by federal or state wildlife and fisheries biologists. While they may hunt, they're not what I'd consider a group of hunters that do studies.

No. Government is out of control. But the game side is probably their best side.
As I said, the government sets the flyway guidelines, but the states set the dates and bag limits within those guidelines. And that is determined by volunteers. I don't know exactly how the process works though.

So the biologists that work for the department of wildlife and fisheries are volunteers and my tax dollars really aren't going to them and paying for there state funded trucks, uniforms, etc?

[NuffDaddy]

Anarchy may not be the key but neither is big government. As for the waterfowl regs, as well as other game, the studies are made by federal or state wildlife and fisheries biologists. While they may hunt, they're not what I'd consider a group of hunters that do studies.

No. Government is out of control. But the game side is probably their best side.
As I said, the government sets the flyway guidelines, but the states set the dates and bag limits within those guidelines. And that is determined by volunteers. I don't know exactly how the process works though.

So the biologists that work for the department of wildlife and fisheries are volunteers and my tax dollars really aren't going to them and paying for there state funded trucks, uniforms, etc?

The guidelines are set by the government with your tax $$. Then the states make their regs within those government guidelines. The states laws are set by volunteers. I believe Dan is on the MI committee.

[Woody]

Living off the land is your right as a citizen, but it is the right of every other citizen, as well. So, if you are being irresponsible with that right, it would fall on government shoulders to prevent you from infringing on the other citizens' rights... how that is done is beyond me.

Which goes to my argument of "they are the state's critters, and as such, I should be able to send them a bill when one of their deer or geese damages my vehicle or property".

They are wards of the state, and the state is us... Government of we the people...

[Woody]

Anarchy may not be the key but neither is big government. As for the waterfowl regs, as well as other game, the studies are made by federal or state wildlife and fisheries biologists. While they may hunt, they're not what I'd consider a group of hunters that do studies.

No. Government is out of control. But the game side is probably their best side.
As I said, the government sets the flyway guidelines, but the states set the dates and bag limits within those guidelines. And that is determined by volunteers. I don't know exactly how the process works though.

So the biologists that work for the department of wildlife and fisheries are volunteers and my tax dollars really aren't going to them and paying for there state funded trucks, uniforms, etc?

The guidelines are set by the government with your tax $$. Then the states make their regs within those government guidelines. The states laws are set by volunteers. I believe Dan is on the MI committee.

He is on the advisory board who advises those who set the regulations.

[Woody]

Guess it's a grey line. I like to believe that the public land and animals belong to the people. But it needs to be regulated by the state because jack asses like the ones in the OP don't care.

Would you go out and butcher a milk cow for the fun of it? Or a laying hen? Probably not, because you know how to manage it to get the most bang for your buck.

Ain't nothing gray about it.

Who do I have to pay to hunt them?
Who sets the regulations about hunting them?
Who writes me a ticket?
Who gets the money?
Who tells me when I can hunt them?
Who tells me where I can hunt them?
Who tells me what I can hunt them with?


Not a damn thing gray about it. They want to exercise the control and the privilege without assuming a damn bit of the responsibility. And that's bullshit. They want to be in charge of them? Fine. Then I send them a bill when one jumps out in front of my Jeep, or eats my garden one night. To claim control without assuming responsibility is weak sauce.

How about this:

I'm allowed to kill unlimited does and 10 bucks a year. Instead of killing them, I catch one of each, and then raise babies on my farm. Then those deer are no longer "managed" by the state, and I can do what I please, right? Nope, because I'm not allowed to catch them or raise them. Why can't I catch a couple buffleheads, clip their wings, and raise all the wild ducks I want? By their very definition, they aren't "wild" anymore, and what do they care if I catch 2 or kill 6? It's all a money-making proposition, nothing more. And if you believe that states are in it for the "good of the wildlife" rather than the money, then you're a fool. You need to look no further than the antler restrictions Hammer noted. Is that for "the good of the animals", or is it to have a deer herd which will draw hunters and generate revenue? If they want to "manage" all the public land they control, more power to them. But to tell a landowner that he may not shoot a deer which is on his property is just silly, from a logical perspective, if you're trying to argue that "we" own the wildlife.

While I agree with you, your argument may be wrong, regarding antler restrictions...

Correctly or not there is thought to be a correlation between "good" genes and large antlers. If they want a healthy herd that can servive disease, famin, harsh winter, etc... They want the best genes.

[3legged_lab]

Guess it's a grey line. I like to believe that the public land and animals belong to the people. But it needs to be regulated by the state because jack asses like the ones in the OP don't care.

Would you go out and butcher a milk cow for the fun of it? Or a laying hen? Probably not, because you know how to manage it to get the most bang for your buck.

Ain't nothing gray about it.

Who do I have to pay to hunt them?
Who sets the regulations about hunting them?
Who writes me a ticket?
Who gets the money?
Who tells me when I can hunt them?
Who tells me where I can hunt them?
Who tells me what I can hunt them with?


Not a damn thing gray about it. They want to exercise the control and the privilege without assuming a damn bit of the responsibility. And that's bullshit. They want to be in charge of them? Fine. Then I send them a bill when one jumps out in front of my Jeep, or eats my garden one night. To claim control without assuming responsibility is weak sauce.

How about this:

I'm allowed to kill unlimited does and 10 bucks a year. Instead of killing them, I catch one of each, and then raise babies on my farm. Then those deer are no longer "managed" by the state, and I can do what I please, right? Nope, because I'm not allowed to catch them or raise them. Why can't I catch a couple buffleheads, clip their wings, and raise all the wild ducks I want? By their very definition, they aren't "wild" anymore, and what do they care if I catch 2 or kill 6? It's all a money-making proposition, nothing more. And if you believe that states are in it for the "good of the wildlife" rather than the money, then you're a fool. You need to look no further than the antler restrictions Hammer noted. Is that for "the good of the animals", or is it to have a deer herd which will draw hunters and generate revenue? If they want to "manage" all the public land they control, more power to them. But to tell a landowner that he may not shoot a deer which is on his property is just silly, from a logical perspective, if you're trying to argue that "we" own the wildlife.

While I agree with you, your argument may be wrong, regarding antler restrictions...

Correctly or not there is thought to be a correlation between "good" genes and large antlers. If they want a healthy herd that can servive disease, famin, harsh winter, etc... They want the best genes.

Then its a fucking miracle how these poor stupid wild animals survived thousands of years on their own before us humans stepped in to save them in the last hundred years.

[assateague]

APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

Curious that you feel "private property rights"="anarchy".

[assateague]

And how is "they pay for stuff which their animals break" anarchy?

[GadwallGetter530]

You'd do it if you knew wouldn't get caught.

Nope, can't say I would. A felony on your record for something like this is harsh. Funny thing is I think we only have a handful of game laws in California that is a felony charge, "I could be mistaken" . Pretty much don't mess with bears, abalone, Tule elk or Big Horn sheep. Other then that I think everything else is a misdemeanor. I'm sure their is some other stuff for non game and endangered species or what ever. But those guys are going to have that on their record till the day they die. Friggin dumb asses.

[NuffDaddy]

You'd do it if you knew wouldn't get caught.

Nope, can't say I would. A felony on your record for something like this is harsh. Funny thing is I think we only have a handful of game laws in California that is a felony charge, "I could be mistaken" . Pretty much don't mess with bears, abalone, Tule elk or Big Horn sheep. Other then that I think everything else is a misdemeanor. I'm sure their is some other stuff for non game and endangered species or what ever. But those guys are going to have that on their record till the day they die. Friggin dumb asses.

Yup. You really gotta try to get a poaching felony. And you deserve it if you do.

[Tomkat]

Having to have a firearms owner card is pure bullshit.

I think those dummy's should be punished. I think you could do it without putting a felony on them.

30 days in jail, A big fine, no hunting for ten years, and 5000 hours of community service would be just as effective. Maybe some of that time they are speaking to hunter safety classes telling them about the bad things they did and telling young hunters its not worth it.

[NuffDaddy]

APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

Curious that you feel "private property rights"="anarchy".

Animals don't fall under private property rights. Just like oil rights, water rights, and airspace. You own the land and things attached to it. That's all. The rest belongs to everyone, and saying there should be no rules to regulate that is anarchy.

[GadwallGetter530]

You'd do it if you knew wouldn't get caught.

Nope, can't say I would. A felony on your record for something like this is harsh. Funny thing is I think we only have a handful of game laws in California that is a felony charge, "I could be mistaken" . Pretty much don't mess with bears, abalone, Tule elk or Big Horn sheep. Other then that I think everything else is a misdemeanor. I'm sure their is some other stuff for non game and endangered species or what ever. But those guys are going to have that on their record till the day they die. Friggin dumb asses.

Yup. You really gotta try to get a poaching felony. And you deserve it if you do.

You can call me a softy or whatever but,ITS FUCKING MARCH! The birds just got their asses handed to them for 5 months. After duck season It's time to just let them do their thing. I don't know maybe it's just the way I see it. I'd feel bad for shooting them that time of year. Shit some of the hens could be holding eggs.

[assateague]

APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

Curious that you feel "private property rights"="anarchy".

Animals don't fall under private property rights. Just like oil rights, water rights, and airspace. You own the land and things attached to it. That's all. The rest belongs to everyone, and saying there should be no rules to regulate that is anarchy.

Why? And for the record, "control" without "responsibility" is tyranny.

And you're ignoring my argument. I've repeatedly said that if they want to claim ownership and control, fine. But then they must be liable for any damages.

[NuffDaddy]

I don't see it as the governments animals. They are yours, mine, and everyone else's.
But we've shown in the past we can't be trusted to manage those animals without enforced regulations.