Feds target 60 hunters in Kansas hunting probe

[ewheeley]

The defense lawyer, in my opinion, basically admitted guilt. By saying, "It's okay, because the state pays contractors to do the same thing."

That's ridiculous. That's like saying, "The military kills people, so it's okay if I do too."

The law is the law, those guys need to deal with it.

 

[RidgeHunter]

I lol'd at the attorney calling his client an "alleged redneck".

Poaching is a sign of small and insignificant genitalia.

 

[RETOKSQUID]

$5,000 for a canned hunt? Holy crap.

If I'm going to pay that much, I'm going to do it in Africa...not Kansas.

Same here. If the earthsacks could afford the 5k for the hunt, then they dang sure could afford the fees for a hunting license and deer tag. No excuse for this what so ever.

 

[Foghorn]

I went back and read the comments section... It was kind of appaling!!!! Most of the people seemed to be condoning the poachers actions and blaming the .gov??? WTF??? I was expecting more tree hugging poor deer, all hunters are evil type of crap.
Fog

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

If the earthsacks could afford the 5k for the hunt, then they dang sure could afford the fees for a hunting license and deer tag. No excuse for this what so ever.

Yeah, ditto. My problem is the involvement of the Feds - yeah Lacey Act and interstate transport and all that, but really? I fear it may be an anti-hunting display by Obama, to not let the state officials prosecute this. Now if the state of Kansas lacked the resources to properly investigate, and ASKED the feds to help by using the lacey act, then OK, I'm alright with that. But I fear expansion of federal power and federal instrusion into traditionally state-regulated areas, like fish & game laws.

Wouldn't this go better in the Hunting Forum?

 

[RETOKSQUID]

Me too. Should have been left at the State level unless help was requested by the state.

 

[ewheeley]

This may a long shot, but look at it this way. If Kansas garners 88,000 hunters a year, nearly 10% of the hunters that go out of state, and a portion of those hunters are hunting illegally, then the other states that offer out of state hunting privileges are getting the short end of the stick. Any of those 88,000 hunters could be considered potential revenue for the other states.

 

[trickydick]

I hate to disagree with the hang-em high attitude here but I'm sure these folks spending 5k for a deer hunt were probably told the tags and all were included(I would surely hope so for that price). They were probably mislead by the paid guides about the tags and the manner of which they could harvest these animals.

 

[dennishoddy]

I hate to disagree with the hang-em high attitude here but I'm sure these folks spending 5k for a deer hunt were probably told the tags and all were included(I would surely hope so for that price). They were probably mislead by the paid guides about the tags and the manner of which they could harvest these animals.

This may be true, but ultimatly its the hunters responsibility to make sure he is aware of all current laws and regs.
Its no different than a buddy in another state saying its ok to carry concealed when in fact that state has no concealed carry regs. The gun owner is still responsible.

Case in point; Ted Nugent just paid a big fine for baiting deer while filming a segment in commiefornia. The guide, put out the bait, and Ted admitted he did not know it was illegal but took responsibility and paid his fine.
The guide is to be sanctioned by the organization he is a member of and will probably lose his license.