missedagain Report post Posted April 25, 2012 I would still stand behind uncle Ted any day. The rule he broke in Alaska seems crazy to me anyway, I hunt several states and read regulation booklets as a hobby and I've never heard of such a law. For the charges in CA you can't do anything in CA without breaking a law that state is as backwards as you can get. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted April 25, 2012 I first heard of that law last year when a client whose memoirs I helped write proudly told me during the interviews that he had lobbied the Alaska Game Board for it. He said it took several years, but the board eventually adopted it. He believes that it will help conserve bears in Southeast Alaska. He compared it to Africa's wound-it and you pay-for-it tradition, and would like to see it adopted across the U.S. He is a successful hunting outfitter who operates from two luxury-class vessels in the areas where the law applies. Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elkrack Report post Posted April 25, 2012 Good law - AZ should adopt the same basic law for all big game species Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
missedagain Report post Posted April 25, 2012 Good law - AZ should adopt the same basic law for all big game species Why create a law that is an ethical issue and is unenforceable. You can't police ethics! Nothing in life is 100% and to think that just because someone is unable to recover game that they made some unethical choice is not realistic. The best hunters in the world, meaning lions, tigers, wolves etc. are successful maybe 10% of the time, to think that human hunters should never wound something is silly, its just part of hunting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stanley Report post Posted April 25, 2012 Good law - AZ should adopt the same basic law for all big game species Why create a law that is an ethical issue and is unenforceable. You can't police ethics! Nothing in life is 100% and to think that just because someone is unable to recover game that they made some unethical choice is not realistic. The best hunters in the world, meaning lions, tigers, wolves etc. are successful maybe 10% of the time, to think that human hunters should never wound something is silly, its just part of hunting. Umm..... I would disagree with the "unenforceable" comment. Seems like Alaska enforced it just fine. S. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AntlerObsession Report post Posted April 25, 2012 Good law - AZ should adopt the same basic law for all big game species Why create a law that is an ethical issue and is unenforceable. You can't police ethics! Nothing in life is 100% and to think that just because someone is unable to recover game that they made some unethical choice is not realistic. The best hunters in the world, meaning lions, tigers, wolves etc. are successful maybe 10% of the time, to think that human hunters should never wound something is silly, its just part of hunting. Umm..... I would disagree with the "unenforceable" comment. Seems like Alaska enforced it just fine. S. Only because the events were recorded and broadcast on TV! They wouldn't have a chance otherwise! Though I disagree with gov't regulating the ethicallity of a shot, or what is the acceptable effort required trying to recover a wounded animal, I think it is necessary for hunters to feel responsible for every bullet they shoot and every arrow they let fly, and the consequences of doing so irresponsibly. Will I be so cavalier next time I'm out hunting, knowing that if I injure an animal with long shots in windy conditions, etc., I will need to recover it or I go home empty-handed? Not that Ted's circumstances fall into this category, but a social stigma about hunting is proliferated by so-called hunters that empty boxes of ammo at deer obviously beyond their effective shooting range, and leave without so much as checking for a blood trail because the deer didn't drop in its tracks. So, I guess the question is: How can we teach proper ethics principles, so that people can govern themselves, instead of having a gov't agency do the governing? What about a long range shooting class that educates on the art of distance shooting, with your own weapon, and at the end, they indicate your effective shooting range based on your abilities shown in a long range field test? I would probably walk out with a range of 40 ft, but I would take that class! That is, if they didn't confiscate my weapon for complete incompetence!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muskrat Report post Posted April 25, 2012 I don't think the premise of the law is the issue; it's the fact that it only applies to a few units and in addition, "wound" isn't defined. Doesn't take away the responsibility to know the laws, just makes it harder. The law Nugent broke is one of which even most Alaska hunters appear unaware. It is even a little difficult to find in the middle of page 16 of the state hunting regulation booklet. There is a highlighted section above it outlining the rules for the "Emergency Taking of Game In Defense of Life or Property," and a highlighted section to the right below it detailing requirements for sealing hides before shipping them. In between these highlighted sections is a section on "Bag Limit," which a lot of hunters are likely to skip past because any who have been hunting long knows the meaning of "bag limit." It's the number of animals a hunter is allowed to harvest, which the state regulation booklet underlines in one sentence beneath the "Bag limit" headline. Seven paragraphs follow that. Most of them focus on explaining bag limits versus Game Management Units in Alaska, a slightly complicated subject The state has more than 20 of these Units. Many of them have different bag limits for the same species of wildlife. The regulations explain how if, for instance, you shoot the limit of one black bear in GMU 6, you can go to GMU 9 and shoot two more because the limit in GMU 9 is three bears a year. But if you shoot a bear in GMU 9, you can't go to GMU 6 and shoot a bear because you've already reached the one-bear limit for that unit. Most of the bag limit section of the handbook deals with these sorts of distinctions, but the second to last paragraph also adds this: "Animals disturbed while hunting do not count against your bag limit; however, a person who has wounded game should make every reasonable effort to retrieve and salvage that game. However, bears wounded in Units 1-5, 8 and elk wounded in Unit 8 do count as your bag limit." "Wounded" is nowhere defined in the "2011-2012 Alaska Hunting Regulations" available to the public, although Ross said it is defined in the 2010-11 booklet. A copy of the 2009-2010 booklet, which is what a hunter in Nugent's situation would have referenced, was not readily available. But whether the arcane standard unique to a small part of Alaska hunting is in there doesn't really matter anyway, because as state officials have in the past pointed out, hunters are responsible for knowing the law whether it is summarized in the publicly available booklet or not. And the regulations in this case are in the Alaska Administrative Code, a document best found in the law library. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elkrack Report post Posted April 26, 2012 Good law - AZ should adopt the same basic law for all big game species Why create a law that is an ethical issue and is unenforceable. You can't police ethics! Nothing in life is 100% and to think that just because someone is unable to recover game that they made some unethical choice is not realistic. The best hunters in the world, meaning lions, tigers, wolves etc. are successful maybe 10% of the time, to think that human hunters should never wound something is silly, its just part of hunting. A lot of our game laws have an ethical nexus, doesn't mean they shouldn't be laws. I also never said hunters do not wound game, they do. If more hunters had the ethical position of having tag soup after wounding and loosing an animal we wouldn't even need to consider this discussion. The fact remains, that is not the case. IMHO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sjvcon Report post Posted April 26, 2012 Good law - AZ should adopt the same basic law for all big game species Why create a law that is an ethical issue and is unenforceable. You can't police ethics! Nothing in life is 100% and to think that just because someone is unable to recover game that they made some unethical choice is not realistic. The best hunters in the world, meaning lions, tigers, wolves etc. are successful maybe 10% of the time, to think that human hunters should never wound something is silly, its just part of hunting. A lot of our game laws have an ethical nexus, doesn't mean they shouldn't be laws. I also never said hunters do not wound game, they do. If more hunters had the ethical position of having tag soup after wounding and loosing an animal we wouldn't even need to consider this discussion. The fact remains, that is not the case. IMHO Have to say that I agree on the "tag soup". You wound it, you're done. Period. That is the way I learned, the way I teach my boys, and the way they will teach their kids if I have any say ... and I will. As to whether we need a law ... not sure. I usually don't like the government meddling, but sometimes that is the only way to get people to see what is ethically right. Tragedy really ... it should just be common sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azpackhorse Report post Posted April 27, 2012 the maniacs are not Ted Nugent people, don't buy into the media BS. http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/26/watch-ted-nugent-tells-the-full-story Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azslim Report post Posted April 28, 2012 want to hear his side of the story? http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/ted-nugent-explains-guilty-plea-for-illegal-bear-hunting-in-alaska/?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Outdoor%20Hub%20News&utm_content=April+27%2C+2012+Nugent+Explains Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
105Coues Report post Posted April 28, 2012 want to hear his side of the story? http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/ted-nugent-explains-guilty-plea-for-illegal-bear-hunting-in-alaska/?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Outdoor%20Hub%20News&utm_content=April+27%2C+2012+Nugent+Explains Thank you for posting this! Hmmm, Feds go after Nuge after the Obama issue?? What a coincidence after Teds secret svc ordeal. We should all know by now that the media (for the most part) is heavily biased to the left and they will try to make a huge negative story out of anything associated with any one they feel as a threat to Obamas reelection. We blood brothers need to stick together and never assume the worst of each other. When the media is concerned, do your own research to find the facts as azslim did. A wise man once said "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear!!" LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pine Donkey Report post Posted April 28, 2012 The espionage act being used against whistleblowing agents. That sounds a lot like 1930's Germany. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThomC Report post Posted April 28, 2012 And Now we know the rest of the story. Maybe Ted was on to something with his comments. Oh no, here come the SS breaking down my door. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Tub Report post Posted April 28, 2012 "That sounds a lot like 1930's Germany" More like typical Chicago polictics! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
