The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

View Poll Results: is it poaching?
this is a case of poaching, pure and simple. 68 91.89%
this is a case of doing what's right. 6 8.11%
Voters: 74. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 16, 2012, 07:30 PM   #51
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,076
Quote:
Grandpa's game management eradicated the wild turkeys from many states where they were native for centuries
uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.

Quote:
another poster claims that the gigantic 300 pound wolves are decimating the deer and elk populations in Washington State to the point there soon won't be any left. Which is it?
that particular poster (wait a minute...oh I see what you did there ) was describing the current situation in montana, wyoming and idaho which were all part of the original wolf implantation programs. and yes, elk and highland deer populations have plummeted in recent years and due in no small part to wolves. those points were brought up in that topic to show a very possible and almost inevitable outcome if washington should also fail to control their wolf population. but that topic is not very central to this conversation although it also deals with the dilemma of carry capacity and over population of a specific species.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is online now  
Old July 16, 2012, 10:21 PM   #52
Hansam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 763
Quote:
uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.
You've got that wrong bud. Turkey is indigenous to the US. Turkey however is NOT indigenous to Europe.

If I recall correctly the first turkey was introduced to Great Britain in the early 1500's and then it spread to the rest of Europe from there.

I may be off on when the turkey first went to Europe but the fact remains that turkeys are native to the Americas and not Europe.
__________________
This is who we are, what we do.
Hansam is offline  
Old July 16, 2012, 10:37 PM   #53
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,423
Hansam is right. Turkeys were not known in the Old World until travelers brought them back from the New World.

I personally have examined numerous turkey burials from SW puebloan sites dating back over 1000 years, along with dog, merlin, hawk burials. Turkeys occurred over much of North America, Central, and South America. Of course, the turkey burials were apparently domesticated turkeys, which is rather neat when you think about it, but they were not your Pilgrim's Pride type of white turkeys. Turkey was a common food of prehistoric Native Americans and their remains can be found in refuse middens of sites with long occupations and even short term sites.

Probably the oldest turkey remains I have examined would be about 6000 years, but they are not the oldest turkey remains found in association with human sites, not even close, just the oldest I have examined.

Remember from your history that Ben Franklin argued for the turkey to be the national bird of the new fledgling country (pun intended). He felt it symbolized America nicely, being of true American origin.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old July 17, 2012, 10:34 AM   #54
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,515
Can't blame old Ben. Turkeys taste better than bald eagles.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old July 17, 2012, 12:48 PM   #55
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,057
Quote:
uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.
As others have stated........Turkeys were a native species here in North America. Same goes for Prairie Chickens. Prairie Chickens were once very abundant the U.S., but hunting and loss of habitat have made them almost rare in most of their original range. Maybe them there "europeans" are the ones that introduced them midget deer........


Quote:
that particular poster (wait a minute...oh I see what you did there ) was describing the current situation in montana, wyoming and idaho which were all part of the original wolf implantation programs.

No...he wasn't. He was talking about a situation in Washington state and the migration of Canadian wolves there. You can tell by the title of his thread....Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population
buck460XVR is offline  
Old July 17, 2012, 03:45 PM   #56
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,620
Quote:
the argument is not whether you should be allowed to take more than one.
So this is in your OP

Quote:
with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.
The possible solution you offer in the OP is wide scale poaching. That is an illegal increase in the number of animals hunters take.

I stated that there is a legal way to increase the game limits. Part of my reasoning was that there is no opposition to increasing the game limit.

In reply you stated that there were powerful interests involved in hunting. You pointed to archery and muzzle loading as examples. What you didn't do is point to any example of a lobby powerful or not that would oppose an increase in game limits in the example you gave in the OP. PETA doesn't count
Buzzcook is offline  
Old July 17, 2012, 03:52 PM   #57
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
Quote:
Personally, I find that the concept of blind obedience to law as outweighing the health of an ecosystem to be philosophically disturbing.
I think this statement leans toward the heart of this topic - Philosophy.

"Blind obedience" is certainly dangerous, but in any organized society, no matter what the form of government, there is a social compact in place. The philosophical nature of that compact is that the populace agrees to give up some of their individual rights to the government, and the government, in turn, agrees to govern in the interest of the people. The level of rights given up individually dictates the amount of power the government holds, and if the balance is not right, then there is either a government that is too weak to maintain control, or a government with too much power that ends up bullying the populace.

Assuming that the balance is right (whether it is or not is probably not a topic for this thread), it is incumbent on each member of the society to follow the laws the government makes, since the right to make and enforce laws is the primary right that has been given up by the individual. It is then incumbent upon the government to make sure that the laws are, in fact, in the best interest of the people they are governing.

This is where it gets fuzzy. The government, being formed of human beings, is not perfect. Never has been, never will be. When the people perceive that the government is wrong, they have the right and the responsibility to make it known and try to get things changed. That can take the form of petitioning, protesting, voting out leaders in favor of new blood, or any number of other methods, but the nature of the actions taken should fall within the established rules for accomplishing change.

A distinction needs to be made at this point. If I feel that my government is wrong, and the rules they have established are unreasonable, I still have the responsibility to follow them while I am trying to get them changed. Only if it is clear that the government is acting illegally or in some way violating the compact that has been established do I have the right to disobey.

A couple of examples of a government acting illegally or violating the social compact:
- Violations of Civil Rights
- Unconstitutional actions

A couple of examples of a government acting unreasonably, but not illegally:
- Enacting tax laws that don't make sense
- Enacting game laws that don't make sense
- Enacting any law that doesn't make sense

Here is the question that must be asked: Was this law put in place legally?
If the law does not violate any other existing statutes, and it does not violate the rights of the people who are subject to the law, then it is not illegal and should be followed.

Notice that there is no allowance for "that law is stupid, so I'm not gonna' follow it." It is not the right of the individual to randomly decide which laws to follow and which to break, assuming that the laws are legal. It IS the right of the individual to be the catalyst of change by gathering support and demonstrating to the government that the people are not happy with the current state of affairs.

Here is the toughest part for a lot of people to swallow:
Even when the majority of the population feels that the rule in question is not reasonable and should be changed, the government is under no obligation to change it. Representative government does NOT mean that the government officials are required to follow popular opinion. They ARE expected to use their best judgement and make decisions that are in the best interest of the people. The popularity of a law, however, is not often a good indicator of whether it is a good law or not. One example of this is taxes. Taxes are incredibly unpopular, but they are necessary, and the government is under no obligation to change or eliminate a tax based on popular opinion (please don't let this statement be the impitus for a partisan debate. I hate to see a good thread put down because it got infected with those darn poli-tics).

The only way to legitimately get a law changed based on popularity is to exercise your right to vote. Get the people you disagree with out of office, and replace them with people you like. If you can't get rid of them that way, then maybe their policies are not as unpopular as you thought they were.

OK. I am officially dismounting the soapbox now.
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 17, 2012, 06:06 PM   #58
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,076
Quote:
No...he wasn't. He was talking about a situation in Washington state and the migration of Canadian wolves there. You can tell by the title of his thread....Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population
the topic at hand was whether washington should control their wolf populations however many of the reports of widespread destruction are coming from MONTANA, WYOMING, AND IDAHO
the discussion revolved around what actions should be taken to control the wolf population based on what has happened elsewhere in the country.

Quote:
the argument is not whether you should be allowed to take more than one.
So this is in your OP

Quote:
with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.
did you purposefully remove the single sentence that I added to make my point just so you could continue this argument?
it is a lot easier to fill a tag if you are allowed to take either sex. since you are not able to, these animals are not being harvested and many hunters are not filling their tags because few of the animals in the region meet the minimum requirements for legal harvest. easing the requirements would allow these animals to be harvested rather than just issuing extra tags.

I think big mikey summed it up very well. he observes both sides of the discussion and points out where both are right and where both are wrong and makes very good arguments for both.

my main issue is one that he pointed out very well,
Quote:
The only way to legitimately get a law changed based on popularity is to exercise your right to vote. Get the people you disagree with out of office, and replace them with people you like. If you can't get rid of them that way, then maybe their policies are not as unpopular as you thought they were.
in this case, it has been addressed several times that there is need of eased restrictions for hunting in this unit however, by popular vote it is denied. the land can't withstand it, the wildlife can't withstand it, many of the landowners and hunters know it but statewide the majority vote lies in the western half of the state. whether through ignorance or just a fear of change will not support such an action. this is where we find ourselves.
now that I've added that quick side note, I think you summed this discussion up very well.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is online now  
Old July 17, 2012, 09:09 PM   #59
twins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2010
Posts: 393
I guess we can argue this till we're all 6 feet under but the informal poll from this thread should tell the OP and Art that majority rules in our country. So "jury nullification" isn't in your favor Art.
twins is offline  
Old July 17, 2012, 10:04 PM   #60
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,515
twins, it's moot. It's now legally possible in Texas to do just what I did. I was just a good many years ahead of the "professionals" on habitat restoration. Hey, it's all a learning curve, and they're young folks, busy reinventing the wheel.

Read the fable about the shape of the cell in a beehive. Aesop, IIRC.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old July 18, 2012, 09:47 AM   #61
cnimrod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2009
Location: NJ/NY
Posts: 143
Here in the northeast

the situation is in no way hypothetical.
Local Firearm restrictions prevent the discharge of weapons, including bows within most village limits. It takes an awful lot of non-hunters to get tired of the deer decimating their landscaping and colliding with their vehicles to get local laws changed or temporarily relaxed. Some towns hire professional sharpshooters many do let local hunters in with restrictions after a special training class. My town hasn't gotten to that point but what has happened is limited poaching has occurred to keep the numbers in check. (Much of it by local LEOs.) Also areas that were once open to hunting but are now closed are still hunted by the locals. Is it illegal - yes, unethical - probably not, but if everybody did it...
cnimrod is offline  
Old July 18, 2012, 10:05 AM   #62
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,423
Ah, but what is funny about that is that while many place may not allow for the discharge of firearms, they do allow for air rifles and there are some very nifty high powered air rifles, but few folks realize this and few folks would consider the option.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old July 18, 2012, 10:21 AM   #63
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,515
The Texas deer herd was severely depleted by the 1930s and thus "Don't shoot does!" became the watchword. That emotion held even after the population explosion from both game laws and the eradication of the screw worm fly. Thus the rules on legal take, precluding does but for one doe per fifty acres. That created a Big Oops insofar as deer becoming pests in some areas.

I read where Alabama's limit was something like a buck a day. Dunno about does, but it indicates a very large population. OTOH, western Texas habitat in some areas will support one deer per fifty acres.

I still believe that the worst enemies of rational dealings with wildlife are Felix Salter and Walt Disney.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old July 18, 2012, 10:55 AM   #64
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,480
Here in the county I live and since I have been hunting it has gone from no deer season at all to bucks only, to bucks and doe.....

Now you can kill 6 deer all the same day if you want to. Only two can be bucks, but they can all be doe.

If that doesn't satisfy you two doe tags can be bought extra as many times as you want.

So, other than the two buck limit there is no limit.

It is a moving target over time.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 19, 2012, 10:08 AM   #65
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
Quote:
Ah, but what is funny about that is that while many place may not allow for the discharge of firearms, they do allow for air rifles and there are some very nifty high powered air rifles, but few folks realize this and few folks would consider the option.
Before using the air rifles in city, check your local laws. In my city, air rifles, BB guns and even sling shots can get you ticketed for "discharge of a firearm within city limits." I found this out the hard way when I was 15 and got in trouble for shooting BB guns in a buddy's back yard. A neighbor called to complain, and we both got ticketed.
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 19, 2012, 11:14 AM   #66
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
It always amazes me that while the great majority of people (I do not know of anyone who has not), will admit to breaking some law on purpose (speeding, parking meter, etc., etc.), they loudly denounce the people who break some other law. I can imagine some child molester voicing an opinion that poaching is "unethical".
Humans do seem to wear selective blinders.
"Judge not least ye be judged". "Your righteousness are as filthy rags."
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old July 19, 2012, 11:23 AM   #67
cnimrod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2009
Location: NJ/NY
Posts: 143
@ dahermit

rationaLIES are still LIES
cnimrod is offline  
Old July 19, 2012, 06:02 PM   #68
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,315
When considering ethics in hunting, we have to think about several things.

We have to do right by the law, we have to do right by our fellow hunters and we must do right by our prey. Problems arise when one of these areas conflict with another.

If I had to prioritize, I'd put doing right by our prey first, doing right by fellow hunters second and doing right by the law third. I don't want to minimize the importance of doing right by the law and I'm not commenting on the Op but there are times the most ethical choice requires violating the law.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old July 19, 2012, 08:57 PM   #69
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,515
Stable ecosystem? I doubt anybody here would condone poaching. There's certainly no justification in the lower 48 insofar as a need for meat; too much public assistance available. (When I was in the Army, the ration was four ounces of meat per GI per meal.)
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old July 19, 2012, 09:49 PM   #70
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,076
I've heard stories about the lewis clark expedition. some of the men were eating as much as 5 pounds of meat a day....that is a lot of meat...but probably not much else.
and I agree, there is, unemployment, social security, food stamps and welfare and if that runs out there is a food bank in almost every town in america. my town has less than 1100 people in it and it has one.

poaching for food is almost an obsolete crime nowadays, it might not be an obsolete excuse however.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is online now  
Old July 20, 2012, 09:51 PM   #71
farmerboy
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 1,343
Well I'm not so quick to lock someone in jail for killing out of season or too many as long as they are not selling the meat. And as far as law goes, we have a speed limit too and how many on here go alittle past that? Laws are laws right? Let's say if our Government passed a law for Everyone to turn in all your weapons and that was Law. How many of us would grab everything we had and stand in line to turn everything in? I think Not! Law or not. Taking a deer or animal is way low on my list. Just saying
farmerboy is offline  
Old July 21, 2012, 08:57 AM   #72
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
Quote:
And as far as law goes, we have a speed limit too and how many on here go alittle past that? Laws are laws right?
I think your logic is a bit flawed, here. Yes we do have speeding laws, and when someone gets caught speeding, he receives the appropriate punishment. Just because it is common to break a law does not mean that it is OK. It simply means that most people are willing to accept the punishment if they get caught. The point is that we do not have the RIGHT to speed, poach, steal, etc. Instead, we have an OBLIGATION to obey the laws. You can't legitimately argue that just because a lot of people break one law it should be OK for people to break another.
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 21, 2012, 09:48 AM   #73
a7mmnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: NC Foothills
Posts: 1,150
To the OP: that's precisely what happens over and over again through time. State regulations in the USA seldom address the independent herd issues; rather they choose to regulate the entire population. Micro zoning is the only way to overcome this, and is unused by most wildlife agencies as to date. Just do the right thing. -7-
a7mmnut is offline  
Old July 22, 2012, 07:08 PM   #74
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,854
OK, so we also have millions of acres of timbered country with high fuel loads due to a century of fire suppression by the government's land managers. Think you should be able to torch off a few hundred ground fires to improve the health of the forest?

Get involved in the improvement of your public game resources and land management practices through the system, not in spite of it.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old July 23, 2012, 07:52 AM   #75
mquail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2011
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 140
Quote:
Same goes for Prairie Chickens. Prairie Chickens were once very abundant the U.S., but hunting and loss of habitat have made them almost rare in most of their original range. Maybe them there "europeans" are the ones that introduced them midget deer........
The Heath Hen is gone and the Attwater's is almost gone. I'm told the greater prairie chicken lives in only a few places in much of it's origional range such as Illinois and Wisconsin. Here? SD, Kansas and Nebraska have huntable populations of chickens. I'm not sure about OK or CO. We have a few chickens in the eastern portion of SD. I'm also pretty sure many organizations have been trying to put the lesser prairie chicken on various lists for a long time.

Brad
mquail is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15482 seconds with 8 queries