Poachers and Penalties: Are Cases Really a Deterrent?

[2Sloe]

Read this article today

Alleged Michigan Deer Poacher Tells DNR He Did It Because He's "Addicted to Venison"

A Michigan man who has just been charged with a slew of deer poaching violations allegedly told the DNR he's "not a very ethical hunter."

www.wideopenspaces.com

I noted that the DNR was “….using the case as an example to other would be violators.” But is it really a deterrent? I wonder if they actually deter violators given the paltry penalties handed down for wildlife violations. Fines are usually not that large and I often wonder if they are ever paid. Many are caught hunting without a license to begin with so how is taking away their right to hunt a deterrent? Taking their vehicle, guns, equipment etc., for egregious, multiple violation cases is probably the biggest deterrent, but that doesn’t always happen.

Of course, even within the hunting community I observe people who think it’s just not that big of a deal. I saw someone make a comment on a poaching case to the affect of “it’s just a deer and you would put someone in jail for that?” If someone is guilty of multiple violations, and considering that it’s a small number of people committing the majority of the violations, I think you have to consider if even a few weeks in jail would be a better deterrent than the other things they often fail to deliver on. Of course when the courts are letting violent offenders who committed violent acts against other people walk free, it is pretty easy to make the case that that a dead deer isn’t that big of a deal and that it’s a “victimless” crime. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this case.

 

[kyler1945]

It would appear that the fellow needs serious clinical intervention to steer his life in a direction that would be acceptable to the genpop.

Jail, nor other hunters hand wringing are going to have much of an impact on someone with severe mental and emotional issues.



Laws and contracts and what not are just our cultural and social norms being written down. They’re not magic. They didn’t exist before we and our weird ideas did. And they’re just that. Ideas.

I think laws regulating when, how, and how many deer I can kill are stupid. And arbiritrary. And based on very little substance. But I generally follow the rules, and am in support of the rules being in place. Why? It’s got nothing to do with right and wrong.

It’s because there’s 8 billion people on the planet. And without the ability to organize and industrialize the production and distribution of core resources, the ability to support that population goes away fast. The jungle might be a fun place to live if you’re not competing with billions of other apes for food and shelter. I’m not so sure we want that right now.

So in the meantime, I follow the rules, and pretend to think they’re in place because it’s the right thing to do, and generally don’t judge folks who skirt the law…

 

[Gator]

Your second to the last sentence is the answer. Enforcing a law with unwanted consequences is about the only effective deterrent. My dad's belt is the only reason I somewhat behaved as a child.

 

[BTaylor]

Assault, domestic abuse, over the limit, not tagged, tresspassing, wanton waste...I'm thinking fines and/or jail time are not going to solve the problem.

 

[Nutterbuster]

I noted that the DNR was “….using the case as an example to other would be violators.” But is it really a deterrent? I wonder if they actually deter violators given the paltry penalties handed down for wildlife violations.

I don't think the purpose of a law is to deter people who are either incapable of performing the math behind choosing to violate it, or who have done the math and decided risk<reward.

The law is there for folks like me, tbh.

I like to shoot critters (when I'm not having a moral crisis over animal sentience). I have ample opportunity to shoot critters in a way that, if commonly done, would probably lead to depopulation issues. I also know that the laws are there, so not everybody is going to do that. I also know that realistically, the odds of me getting caught are low. I'm like Kyler in that I don't see a moral difference between shooting a deer in July vs October, or at 2am vs 2pm.

So...I'm squirrel hunting 3 weeks from now after deer season ends. As I'm slipping along a creek bottom I see a nice buck. I'm holding a .22wmr. I've hunted this spot for 10 years and have never seen a game warden. Killing, eating, and admiring the horns of this deer involves nothing more than pulling a trigger and (if I want to play it safe) coming back at dark thirty tomorrow morning before anybody is stirring to retrieve it. Doesn't sound too bad.

But, lingering in the back of my mind is the knowledge that our society has decided this is a no-no, and that it pays for people to enact state-sanctioned violence against individuals who disagree with the verdict. The risk of getting caught is low but never zero, and if I get caught, there's a certainty of a fine. Minimum here is to my understanding $250 for hunting out of season, and you'll probably catch hunting with an prohibited weapons charge as well ($50, I think?) as well as another charge or two that you may or may not think is really close to being a double-jeopardy charge (possession of illegally harvested game, for example). So a minimum of a $300 ticket, possible confiscation (probably temporary, but still a huge annoyance) of hunting equipment, definite future hassle of having that warden know you as a guy he pinched before, earful from the wife, loss of reputation, etc, etc.

For somebody who is reasonably rational and has some measure of impulse-control...it's less stressful to just watch that buck and have something to look forward to next October.

Most laws, if we're honest, aren't about making sure that everybody behaves perfectly all of the time. They're about making it so that most of the people behave mostly correctly most of the time.

With some folks, and I'm afraid the perp in question may be one, there's something keeping them from trodding the same path and reaching the same conclusion most folks have. I'm doubtful that the answer is more draconian consequences.

 

[Sbrammer]

Your second to the last sentence is the answer. Enforcing a law with unwanted consequences is about the only effective deterrent. My dad's belt is the only reason I somewhat behaved as a child.

You know I remember when I was a mischievous youth and got caught doing something I knew was wrong I didn't mind the consequences of whatever it was I was doing, but PLEASE don't call my parents! Basically because my mom and dad knew how to take care of a problem, and were incredibly gifted with how to make sure it never happened again.

I really have to add I didn't love them less and it didn't cause me any mental issues later in life either.

 

[boyne bowhunter]

For me the fear of losing my hunting privileges are the biggest deterrent to breaking the game laws (next to my upbringing anyway). Actual jail time is very rare for these offenses, the fines, while pretty high, are not "life altering" sums of money but to lose my hunting privileges for 5 - 10 yeas would be life altering for me.

That said, I'm sure that is not the case for a lot of individual who consistently choose to violate the game laws. I have followed Michigan's bi-weekly CO reports just as a "shake my head" form of entertainment. I am constantly amazed at how many reports are extremely similar in nature. It seems to that most reports seem to be centered around three major categories:
-Trespassing
-Road Hunting, Loaded weapons in vehicles
- No License or Improper use of license (not tagging or over limit)

The fact that so many guys don't feel the need to even buy a license means to me that the biggest deterrent for me doesn't come into play for a lot of guys. Heck, what's a 5 or 10 year ban gonna mean for a guy who doesn't even bother to buy a license during a normal season? He's going to hunt regardless.

The other thing I should point out is that, at least in Michigan, our COs are spread way too thin. In almost 50 years of hunting/fishing (and I'm outdoors MUCH more than most) I estimate that I've had less than a dozen encounters with CO's while in the field. Consider that I spend a great portion of my deer season hunting remote and camped on public land and you see that the threat of getting caught at something is not very high. Yet still, every two weeks there's several full pages of incidents reported and I know first hand not all incidents make the report.

A link to the Michigan reports if anyone wants some interesting reads . . .

https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/managing-resources/laws/cobiweekly

 

[SaddleUpPartner!]

If I have to pay for a license then that guy has to pay for a license. If I can only shoot 2 deer a season, then that guy can only shoot 2. If I can’t waltz onto his land and hunt his spot, then he can’t do the same to mine. I honestly can’t stand losers like this. I pay all this money for this sport and follow the rules and this guy thinks he gets to cut corners because of what? He’s not the king of Michigan. This isn’t “HIS” land, it’s everyone’s land. That’s like walking onto a golf course and teeing off without paying. The entitlement of some people is just stunning sometimes. Throw the book at him.

 

[thedutchtouch]

Tlr yes rules make sense, scofflaws still won't care. Think of it as driving with a suspended license, he ain't gonna stop. Traffic laws still make sense for the other 99% of us to follow though. And he's giving the police job security..

Longer version: Yep. Cases are definitely a deterrent, that's why the vast majority of people follow the law. It doesn't matter what law it is, the concept and it's effectiveness doesn't change whether we are talking about hunting, or speeding, or really anything.

Unfortunately that concept gets lost and muddied, so we end up with a lot of unnecessary regulation in some areas and lack of regulation (or lack of ability to effectively change regulations) in reality. Speed limits are a very easy foil to hold up- we all generally agree that the rules make the roads safer, even though we likely all would trust our abilities to give ourselves less restrictive rules, and just keep the rules for those "others", and the people that tailgate and weave through traffic and do 100 on the highway and 50 through town are likely going to keep being that way regardless of how many times they get pulled over.

Hunting is a weird thing where people feel entitled to something that's not theirs, driving and control over your personal vehicle is the thing I can think of that comes closest in terms of feeling entitled to autonomy. Guys like that could solve their problems by simply moving to a less restrictive state but that solution requires logic and difficult choices. It's easier to make poor choices and break the law. Reminds me of the thread about the POS that sabotaged a stand and got 60 days. Basically telling him you'll get slapped on the wrist for trying to kill someone, odds are he does it again and someone dies. But we shouldn't have red flag laws, or should we? (Not trying to make it political more speaking to the overwhelming grey area sometimes)

 

[Dsabhunt]

Wow. I can't believe some some of your guy's take on conservation. A hundred years ago there were no game laws and almost ever species of big game almost got wiped out.
Can you imagine if everyone did what this guy did? There would be no whitetail deer, no elk, no bear or any game animal for anyone to hunt. This is why rules were put in place by conservationists.
I as many others don't want to lose my hunting rights but I also want to preserve the animals for future generations so they can have the same enjoyment that I and so many ethical hunters enjoy

 

[thedutchtouch]

Wow. I can't believe some some of your guy's take on conservation. A hundred years ago there were no game laws and almost ever species of big game almost got wiped out.
Can you imagine if everyone did what this guy did? There would be no whitetail deer, no elk, no bear or any game animal for anyone to hunt. This is why rules were put in place by conservationists.
I as many others don't want to lose my hunting rights but I also want to preserve the animals for future generations so they can have the same enjoyment that I and so many ethical hunters enjoy

I don't mean to speak for everyone but I think you're misreading all of the replies? Because they all seem (to me) to say basically the same thing- that the laws are good/well intentioned, are there for a reason and the majority of us follow them, but people like this individual likely aren't deterred by the consequences, rules or no rules. If anything we are saying the laws need more teeth, not less. I am also pro- speed limit, as much as I enjoy the feeling of driving fast.

 

[Dsabhunt]

I agree 100% the laws need to be tougher. I'm not misreading all the replies. I'm saying two guys said shoot as many deer as you want. Didn't matter to them. But they follow the rules.
Stories like these should make any hunters blood boil

 

[thedutchtouch]

I agree 100% the laws need to be tougher. I'm not misreading all the replies. I'm saying two guys said shoot as many deer as you want. Didn't matter to them. But they follow the rules.
Stories like these should make any hunters blood boil

Deer and deer populations are different in different places. Some places by me there's nothing green under 6'. Other places there's no deer for miles it seems. Where I hunt it's legal to shoot as many does as you want, and while I greet each new season with unbridled optimism, it hasn't translated to the numbers I imagine. I'd encourage you to have a similar perspective, if it's legal, perhaps there's an ecological reason. Perhaps not, but don't jump to blood boiling.

 

[kyler1945]

I agree 100% the laws need to be tougher. I'm not misreading all the replies. I'm saying two guys said shoot as many deer as you want. Didn't matter to them. But they follow the rules.
Stories like these should make any hunters blood boil

 

[rhagenw]

You southern boys are bunch of outlaws

 

[rhagenw]

I personally believe all hunting and fishing rights should be revoke for life if game animals taken out of season or via spot light. If crime commented again that person shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. That would change people's mind set.

 

[kyler1945]

I personally believe all hunting and fishing rights should be revoke for life if game animals taken out of season or via spot light. If crime commented again that person shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. That would change people's mind set.

Ever wondered WHY the penalties aren’t that severe?

 

[SNIPERBBB]

Like everything else, ir will deter the casual violators, the ones that do it out of ignorance ot just this once types

The penalties make it harder for the "professional" violators to do it again.

 

[rhagenw]

Ever wondered WHY the penalties aren’t that severe?

Please tell ever so knowledgeable internet stranger. Punishments for all offensives should be frightening.

 

[SNIPERBBB]

Ever wondered WHY the penalties aren’t that severe?

No point fining a guy 100000 when most aren likely to have 10000.