Not Getting Caught

You have to remember that the CPO is trained to LIE in his investigation in order to obtain evidence and a conviction. If you lie to him it is a crime. It is also important to remember that most game laws have nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with which group has the most political power. Example: How many on this forum would ban inlines and smokeless ML if they had the political power? The kind of firearm used has nothing to do with conservation. As for not getting caught, well you have to remember that Robin Hood was a poacher 1st. Sorta like the way hunting is going now, only for rich guys that can afford to control the land with everybodys deer on it. I've had hunters get realy upset when they found out we had been really successful hunting and get accused of trespass etc when we were not. You have to remember that tags and limits are for having an "equitable" distribution of the kill in the hunting community and that in reality 5% of the hunters take 95% of the kill and tags/limits are the only way to keep the best hunters from taking the most of the deer or whatever. And in many rural areas where the people are poorer mostly and the good hunters are the %5 the game laws are viewed as just part of the rich guys using "the man" to keep you down and keep the game all to themselves, like Robin Hood and "the kings deer, how dare you kill one!". Guess I've stirred the pot enough, lol. FP

GOSH there is so much balderdash here it's tough to know where to begin, and this is way off the original thread and pushing toward the limit of the forum too.

You have to remember that the CPO is trained to LIE in his investigation in order to obtain evidence and a conviction. If you lie to him it is a crime.

While there is a charge of "false statement to a police officer" it ONLY applies when you approach an LEO to make a report, or use a false name. Lying to the police happens in just about 90% of all arrests (and gee they don't add a charge for that, duh) and you have a constitutional right not to incriminate yourself, so you can lie to a cop, or simply refuse to answer the question. It happens to me almost every day.

It is also important to remember that most game laws have nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with which group has the most political power. Example: How many on this forum would ban inlines and smokeless ML if they had the political power? The kind of firearm used has nothing to do with conservation.

That's a fine theoretical question, NOW how about you do a survey of all the game regulations and show how the actual game laws aren't about conservation and safety? Until then, this is a gratuitous assumption that is asserted as fact. It also takes a very negative view of this community. I certainly would not ban inlines of any sort, for that would not only have me infringe on person's personal choice for harvesting game, as well as impact hundreds of jobs. I would modify the current laws and create a situation at a point in the season that favors traditional firearms.
If it did have something to do with who has the actual political power..., in blue states where you have a large city, such as New York, hunting would be banned, period, because of New York City's voting power. The DNR would in that state would then hold "controlled harvest operations" and the rich guys would then "volunteer" to help thin the deer herd, or your tax money would go to hiring "professional" hunters to do the job and nobody would hunt.

You have to remember that tags and limits are for having an "equitable" distribution of the kill in the hunting community and that in reality 5% of the hunters take 95% of the kill and tags/limits are the only way to keep the best hunters from taking the most of the deer or whatever.



NO, actually it is a method used to avoid over harvesting of the game species and thus causing the numbers to drop to dangerously low levels. A real example when this should've been applied but wasn't: The Passenger Pigeon. For most of the history of deer limits the only harvested deer were bucks. A single buck will service several does, and thus severly reducing the numbers of bucks would have reduced deer numbers overall. This is still true and you will find much lower limits for bucks than for does when does are allowed for harvest.
So, in areas where the deer population has exploded, due to "no hunting zones", there are so many deer that harvesting of large numbers of does is allowed. The limit system is often behind the actuall needs in many parts of the country these days, but it's not about "equitable distribution" of animals.

And in many rural areas where the people are poorer mostly and the good hunters are the %5 the game laws are viewed as just part of the rich guys using "the man" to keep you down and keep the game all to themselves, like Robin Hood and "the kings deer, how dare you kill one!"

So by your argument, the rich guys what??, fence in their property to keep the deer? OR is it all property in rural areas is owned by "rich guys" who prohibit anybody using the land but them?

Either you own property or you do not. If you don't, like me, you have to either get permission to hunt, or you have to hunt public lands, or you get a stamp for a controlled-harvest from a state park. Forty years ago as a kid, most of my county was farms, and would fall into your "mostly poorer rural" category..., and the situation was the same. The land owner had the right to allow you to hunt or to deny you permission. Guess what, since I didn't live in their town nor attended their church they didn't know me or my dad, so no permission was given when we asked. We didn't like it, but it was their right. It had nothing to do with the economic level of the owner. We didn't whine and say things like "boo hoo the selfish farmer is hogging all of his land and won't let folks hunt deer there". We didn't complain that it wasn't "fair", or fall into the trap of "equal distribution".

Today, farmers lease land and they charge large amounts of money. The same families that were there 40 years ago are leasing their land to folks who can meet the asking price. HELLO? The farmer has the land to ...wait for it..., provide an income to himself and his family. Are the rich guys at fault or is the farmer "greedy" for leasing the land instead of farming it and allowing you to hunt on it? (neither). How about the farmers who give hunting permission only to the farm hands as one of the benefits of working there? You and I still can't hunt there..., doesn't matter if its rich-guy-leased or employees-only, we can't use it.

You complaint sounds like something coming from Washington DC, where the mantra is "redistribution to make things more equal"... a.k.a "equal distribution".

LD

:thumbsup:

Loyalist Dave. +1 :thumbsup: Couldn't have answered to that diatribe of :bull: any better than you did.

Then there's the question of how much game your own land will support. If perhaps 6 deer a year can be taken from your place, do you reserve that hunting opportunity for family and close friends, or do you pull down the signs and let strangers swamp you and end your hunting?

What the heck. The fact that you pay the taxes, repair the fences, clean up the trash and manage vehicles to control erosion carries no weight. Where are all the complainers when the deer are gone and the land is trashed?

Yup, I'm a bad guy. I'll trespass every whining poacher that even tries for a free ride on all my hard work and taxes.

Kudos Loyalist.

Thank you, Loyalist. I do not own huntable land as my house sits on 1/4 acre, but the plan is to have land I can hunt someday, and it would be pointless to keep working for it if it wasn't a reachable goal. I do not trespass or poach, and have no use for anyone that does, because if they will do it to a land-owner now, they will do it to me later when I buy mine, and pay the taxes, and do the upkeep, etc., etc.

"You have to remember that the CPO is trained to LIE in his investigation in order to obtain evidence and a conviction. If you lie to him it is a crime.

While there is a charge of "false statement to a police officer" it ONLY applies when you approach an LEO to make a report, or use a false name. Lying to the police happens in just about 90% of all arrests (and gee they don't add a charge for that, duh) and you have a constitutional right not to incriminate yourself, so you can lie to a cop, or simply refuse to answer the question. It happens to me almost every day. "


WOW! might be true in Maryland. Not so in several other states. LEO's here routinely charge folks for false remarks. A few police here are so accustomed to lying that they forget that it is a misdemeanor to lie on a charging document and commit crimes themselves. Caught three officers in that one in the past five years.

Trespassers are thieves. They steal part of the exclusive right to use of the property that the rightful owner has paid for. Just like the use of your car, lawnmower, or easy chair. If property were just open for anybody to use when ever they felt like it, there would be no benefit to owning property of any kind.

To me they have the same lack of morality as shoplifters.

It is the mentality of the half acre harry's that the land owner is being selfish with his property. If the landowner tried to use the half acre, Harry would scream bloody murder, yet myopically doesn't see the absurdity of his views on the landowner.

Thank you Loyalist Dave.

i grew up in WV in the 40s and 50s. There were tens of thousands of acres of National Forest land on which to hunt.

Some land owners posted their property: We absolutely did not go there. One large land owner had all his property posted. One day in town i asked him if my brother and i could hunt on his property. He replied in the affirmative and wrote out a permission slip on the spot. i will always remember what he said: "No one ever asked before, they just trespass on my property".

The hunting property i own is marginal farm land purchased years ago at low cost. One place was plagued with trespassers.

The nearby hog hunting "ranch" claimed to have leased 10,000 acres for their clients. In fact they leased nothing. They dropped off hunters to trespass and hunt on the property of others. That all ended when a grass fire burned up a new Dodge diesel pickup on an adjacent property. My neighbor says he did not do it: "Must have been the catalytic converter".

Former OK law allowed farmers to willfully trespass on the property of others while "looking for their livestock". Numerous landowners raised hades and now the livestock owner must get permission before "looking for his cows".

Many of the hunters here are total outlaws. Many, if not most, adult buck deer are poached prior to deer season.

In my 25 years in military service I hunted big and small game in ID, AL, TX, CA and WA. My last duty station was in the upper peninsula ("U.P.") of MI. Lots of state and federal property there for everyones' use but finding that land to hunt on was nearly impossible since most of it was signed as "private property, no hunting and private lease" - probably nearly all of those claims were bogus ways for locals to use public land for themselves in the days pre-GPS and even if we'd had GPS, who wanted to risk a show-down with an armed group defending "their" land. baxter

I do, and always have hunted, or fished by the rules. Growing up, my father was a Marine Sergeant Major. Today, my wife is a Law Enforcement Officer. Whilst, I have seen Game Officers hunting, or at least in hunting areas, I have never been stopped by one. I was stopped once whilst fishing at 0030 walking back to my rig with four Steelhead. Limit is two per day. I had caught, and filled out the punch card correctly. The Game Officers were trying to catch a known poacher, and not only had been watching me in the dark, but knew to the minute when I had caught each fish....two before midnight, and two after. BTW, even today, I see in the dark like a cat, but that night I never saw those officers with the night vision gear. Thinking you can not be seen is a thing of the past. They did ask if I knew a certain person, which I did not, but given a description of him I was able to tell them where he was.

Sean, if that's your story you should stick to it. Deny, deny, deny!
:rotf:

As for the rest of us following the law, integrity is doing the right thing when NO-ONE is watching. And almost always that means fully following the law.

Alden said:

Sean, if that's your story you should stick to it. Deny, deny, deny!
:rotf:

As for the rest of us following the law, integrity is doing the right thing when NO-ONE is watching. And almost always that means fully following the law.

Click to expand...

Well I have half a dozen + posts in this topic some I don't see as :rotf: at all, so I'm lost as to Deny, deny, deny! :rotf:

Would you care to clarify as to what you are speaking?

:thumbsup:

It seems that a lot of people tend to bait deer with corn around my area. Although it's not legal they all think there's nothing wrong with it. I put corn out myself during the late winter months and feed some in the summer just to keep the deer on my place, but I remove the feeder at least 2 weeks prior to opening day.

I dont bait but I see no difference in baiting or planting a plot in the middle of the woods just for deer. You see more deer in the plot than the feeder, so which is unfair? :hmm:

orion52 said:

It has been my experience that even though you don't see the warden....he very well could have eyes on you. The wardens here in VT. are highly trained professionals,.....

Click to expand...

I was once Ice fishing a good sized lake in Vermont that had and undeveloped shoreline surrounded by mountains and a single access road. My buddy and I noticed someone emerge from the wooded shoreline a mile or so away on the opposite (remote), side of the lake and walk toward us on snowshoes. Turned out to be a Vermont Game Warden and he had hiked in over the mountains. I was impressed by his willingness to get out of a vehicle and hike that far just to check a license.