Hold on I'm going to need some popcorn, if he's already taking pictures of books this next one should be good.
-
The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
-
We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules
Poachers and Penalties: Are Cases Really a Deterrent?
- Thread starter 2Sloe
- Start date
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 1,193
I know right, I am trying to poke the bear for we can read a 1000 word essay with data point explaining that wild life violations are justified.
What was the rule? Sarcasm is denoted by italics, right?
You can't endorse revoking a constitutional right (bear arms) for non-violent offenses and then declare you're not a "statist."
I mean that as a good-natured, friendly jab with the main intent being to point out an inconsistency that I assume you don't really endorse.
I'm not even going to get into why I think you're wrong, beyond asking you if you're cool with everybody getting to pick a big stone to use on their least favorite sin, and if you think that the executive and judicial branches of the government are inerrant.
I don’t know. Really, I don’t.
But It seems like if we all agreed you get shot in the face of you kill too many deer, it would happen a lot less. Why don’t we have much stronger consequences in place then? If the point is to save all the deer for future enjoyment and ethics and yada yada, just have LEO with the gumption to put a bullet in someone’s face the first time they kill too many deer. I am 100% confident that you’ll reduce those violations by 99.99999%.
Also, for those in the back of class think I’m trying to flex, have you noticed a pattern on when I do it? Usually, someone is being attacked for what is an otherwise harmless thing, or someone who can’t help the situation they’re in to a large extent.
I don’t like that that guy thinks he can do whatever he wants while we all play by the rules. The difference is I feel sorry for him, and wish it weren’t like that for him or us. I also know punishment is not his issue.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 1,193
Honestly I'm trying to add color to a post season thread. Got to keep the tradition alive on being salty. Also how many violations do you and @kyler1945 commit a year? Honestly I do use a screw in bow holder and will use pruners. Opps
Dsabhunt
Well-Known Member
I have no issue with shooting as many deer as is legal for your area. What this guy did was not legal. That poacher stole those animals from license holding hunters. That could've harvested them legally. That I have an issue with. If you don't that's fine but yes it does make my blood boil.
If I did commit any game violations (and we're strictly in the realm of hypothetical here) I would never admit to them on this thread as long as @The_Fit_Ness_Monster is an active forum member here.
But I know a guy who probably didn't kill his first strictly legal, in-season squirrel until he was 19 years old. And he's the child of a man who didn't realize there were bag limits on squirrels until he was probably in his 30s. And he's the child of a man who in his 70s still believes that unless DCNR wants to run the bush hog and pay the taxes on his farm, he'll decide when and how many squirrels die.
I like all 3 fellers, and would trust them with my wife, my house, and my dog.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 1,193
But how about your boat? That's the true question. I admittedly was reaching about disarming someone, I highly believe in someone's right to be armed. But I do believe this guy in the article shouldn't be allowed to hunt or fish again.If I did commit any game violations (and we're strictly in the realm of hypothetical here) I would never admit to them on this thread as long as @The_Fit_Ness_Monster is an active forum member here.
But I know a guy who probably didn't kill his first strictly legal, in-season squirrel until he was 19 years old. And he's the child of a man who didn't realize there were bag limits on squirrels until he was probably in his 30s. And he's the child of a man who in his 70s still believes that unless DCNR wants to run the bush hog and pay the taxes on his farm, he'll decide when and how many squirrels die.
I like all 3 fellers, and would trust them with my wife, my house, and my dog.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 1,193
And @The_Fit_Ness_Monster I only hunt primo private land so no laws broken
Gotcha, 100% I take issue with the poaching as well, whether it's the second deer or the 10th, poaching is poaching. I thought you were applying the same logic to legally harvested high numbers (or the desire for them).
Dsabhunt
Well-Known Member
Not at all. I'm actually jealous some of you get to shoot multiple deer every year. In Minnesota you get 1 deer in the fall and 1 turkey in the spring. But I understand the logic behind only allowing 1 harvest for both
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Messages
- 5,990
If I did commit any game violations (and we're strictly in the realm of hypothetical here) I would never admit to them on this thread as long as @The_Fit_Ness_Monster is an active forum member here.
But I know a guy who probably didn't kill his first strictly legal, in-season squirrel until he was 19 years old. And he's the child of a man who didn't realize there were bag limits on squirrels until he was probably in his 30s. And he's the child of a man who in his 70s still believes that unless DCNR wants to run the bush hog and pay the taxes on his farm, he'll decide when and how many squirrels die.
I like all 3 fellers, and would trust them with my wife, my house, and my dog.
Title is “breakin-the-law-breakin-the-law”
https://saddlehunter.com/community/...in-the-law-breakin-the-law.41732/#post-572850
Poster is @Nutterbuster
Most recent original thread “The Purge: Hunters Edition.”
geez. But he at least follows (most) of the rules. Other folks really are nutters.
Last edited:
You feel sorry for him? The article said he was easy to find because he was already in jail for some kind of domestic abuse. Not a “harmless” crime. It also said he was letting some of the deer spoil so I don’t think he’s poaching for food. I think the pattern of when you try to “flex” is that you always desire to be the contrarian regardless of the issue.
I feel sorry for him because of the luck involved with his switches and dials being set the way they are, and the environment he was exposed to his entire life. Which both have a whole lot more to do with his habitual offending, than his “free will” to continuously make bad choices that make his life and the life of anyone close to him worse.
I don’t condone his choices, nor think they shouldn’t be met with consequences.
I appreciate your opinion on why I do what I do. I was just listening to podcast with those deer lab guys. They’re freakin smart. Dr. Strickland pointed out an interesting thing we do.
A guy wrote in and said that he saw breeding activity two weeks early, and none at the normal rut time, so their rut moved up two weeks and he wanted to know why. They graciously pointed out the science on why the rut doesn’t move, and then explained why that fellow might remember what he did. Every single deer doesn’t follow the rule. There’s always a couple exceptions. WE DONT REMEMBER THE RULE, WE REMEMBER THE EXCEPTIONS.
This explains why we think that the moon, barometric pressure, camo color, scent control, and any other number of things contribute to our deer success. It worked that one time. Much more memorable than all the times it didn’t.
It’s probably much more memorable when I take a position opposite of you on a topic than when I agree with you. But all those times I agree with you (or the general consensus) are boring. It’s easy to see why you feel the way you do about me.
I’m disagreeable. That’s for sure. Contrarian for contrarian’s sake isn’t my jam.
You also think me being annoyed with posting articles here about law breakers so we can poopoo him and remind each other we’re the good monkeys, is the same as me thinking what he did is harmless or ok or whatever. It’s not.
There should be consequences. One of them is the community you’re wronging to let you know about it. I’m just failing to see the upside of posting an article he’ll never read, on a hunting forum he’ll never visit.
What have we gained by this thread?
The post was not about “him”, it was about the system that is supposed to deter people like him. Sure he was the example. I don’t think many on the forum felt that the perp needed to read it or visit the forum in order to discuss the system that is supposed to keep people like him in check. Change is often spurred by awareness. Additionally, when people think that it’s ok to break the law, they are more likely to break it. There are probably some of those on this site.
I really am sorry that you saw zero value in the post. There are different forms on the site for different topics, which makes it easier to avoid topics that you see no value in. I thought the topic fell within the guidelines of the “Deer Hunting” forum, but maybe I was wrong, maybe I should have posted it to the “General“ forum. If that is the case, then I apologize for my misstep.
Naw man, you’re good. I don’t think you did anything wrong, if what you’re after is a discussion on how to prevent wildlife violations.
Why we would want that, and what the tradeoffs are for any system we might implement are important.
I just think using someone who clearly has had a rough go of it, and will clearly not be impacted by whatever punishment we want to advertise, is not going to do us any good.
You’re going to have a certain subset of the population who will repeatedly break social and cultural norms. It’s inevitable.
Let’s set a goal: rules that reduce the most amount of violations, with the least amount of infringement on the personal liberties of those who try to play nice.
How would we change the rules/consequences currently in place to meet that goal?
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2021
- Messages
- 2,207
We sure are an eclectic bunch.
“What have we gained from this thread?” : we may not have gained anything yet, but without discussion, disagreement, sharing of ideas, and respectful conflict our civilization would rapidly descend into isolation and toxic individualism - a path wIth no healthy outcomes.
One of my favorite elements of this forum is the way people with different ideas and beliefs have practical discussions often full of tension and conflict. But we keep a modicum of respect, tolerance and consideration for one another - presumably because we all have a deep love of hunting.
“What have we gained from this thread?” : we may not have gained anything yet, but without discussion, disagreement, sharing of ideas, and respectful conflict our civilization would rapidly descend into isolation and toxic individualism - a path wIth no healthy outcomes.
One of my favorite elements of this forum is the way people with different ideas and beliefs have practical discussions often full of tension and conflict. But we keep a modicum of respect, tolerance and consideration for one another - presumably because we all have a deep love of hunting.