# The true impact of poaching.....



## DILLIGAF (Jul 19, 2000)

I just finished reading the "Cuffs and Collars" section if Michigan Outdoor News. Here is a breakdown of ONE WEEKS worth of poaching busts; 60 cases of poaching, 22 deer poached, 11 Turkeys poached and one bear poached (PS: poached, is not a cooking method). THAT'S JUST ONE WEEKS WORTH OF POACHING FROM ONE PUBLICATION!

My questions are; How many poachers got away? 
What is the real impact on our state's wildlife? Does the DNR take these "unknowns" into consideration when doing the deer counts? Are the fines and punishments for poaching strong enough?

Your thoughts..............


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2000)

DILLIGAF: i have another question for you . How many deer were killed as a result of crop damage permits ? When i lived in Michigan therw was a tree farm near hasting that came on Mort Neffs Michigan out doors every year it seemend and complained about the amount of deer damamge done by the deer and the DNR would allow them to kill them to reduce the size of the herd. Well me and my brother tried to get permission to hunt on ther eland and they SAID NO WAY !!! I would like to know how many deer are just killed on crop damage permits ?


----------



## Jackone (Nov 20, 2000)

Hey Dilligaf, I love your handle. It is the name of my bowling team. I tried to get it here but you had already taken it. Give it back please.


----------



## DILLIGAF (Jul 19, 2000)

> Originally posted by Jackone:
> *Hey Dilligaf, I love your handle. It is the name of my bowling team. I tried to get it here but you had already taken it. Give it back please. *


Can't do it Jackone. It's the name of my hunt club and not a bad philosophy on life.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Unfortnately, the majority of poachers get away. The group that owns the parcel next to me has been poaching for years and DNR can not catch them in the act. The no baiting laws may have helped though. They can no longer place a couple tons of bait under the street lights they had installed on either sides of their cabin. Shots used to echo through the night. Hopefully, they will sell and move to a different area now. &lt;----&lt;&lt;&lt; 

[This message has been edited by Joe Archer (edited 12-01-2000).]


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

This year when I was up bow-hunting the rut, I had a ten point cross ten yards to my right. I never did get a shot, but the electricity that was added to the next 5 days was incredible! Just seeing these deer is what makes a hunt. That is what poachers take from each and every one of us! I say, remove their right to hunt and/or own firearms .... forever! &lt;----&lt;&lt;&lt;


----------



## Eastern Yooper (Nov 12, 2000)

What does the new 'no-baiting' laws have to do with curbing the night shooting your neighbors used to do?

Seems to me it has always been illegal to: (a) use an artificial light and (b) shoot after hunting hours have closed.

I hope you did the right thing and called the law after hearing those shots..... because crying about it on a computer and hoping the idiots "move someplace else" doesn't help the situation one bit.

All a 'no-baiting' law does is ruin a method enjoyed by the vast majority of law-abiding sportsmen. But as usual, the majority pay the price for a relatively few amount of jerks.

------------------


VEGETARIAN: Indian word meaning 'Bad Hunter'


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Poaching still is a problem but the fines have went up a lot since the days of the Mort Neff show. Prior to around 1983 the fine for an illegal deer was normally $100 fine, $30 cost, $100 restitution, 5 days in jail, loss of all hunting for 3 years and the year convicted. Now the normal fine is $200 fine, $100 costs, $1,000 restitution, 5 days, and loss of hunting for 3 years. Do they all get that, NO! Some judges are hard on it, some judges will not even go there. Defense attorneys and judges also look for loopholes in the laws to allow poachers to get off. An example is, back in the early 80's there were two different charges for poaching deer. One was, "Illegally kill a deer" and the other was "Willful illegal killing a deer" The first was used by an officer when it was thought that the hunter made a mistake that the officer wanted to charge him with a lsser offense. The wilfull was used for shooting deer at night etc. It got to the point that judges would not take the "wilfull" charge at all so hence, the illegal deer charge came so that all got hammered the same as "wilfull". Now judges find other ways as to drop the charge to a much lesser charge or refuses to charge restitution to some defendants.

There are far fewer summer crop damage permits issued now then there was a one time with the block permit system. As far as people getting permission to hunt those lands with damage, I understand but it is impossible for force a private land owner to allow people to hunt private property and I for one would not even want to get into a situation of attempting to force the opening of private land. It's not going to happen.

The Wildlife biologists do take into consideration an esimate of the numbers of poached animals when setting seasons. Just as they do car/deer accidents, winter kill and everything else.

Yes, the majority of poachers do get away but, it does not have to be that an officer must witness the action. If a citizen sees poaching activity and has enough information and is willing to testify to what they saw, an investigation is done and the choice become the prosecutor's if a warrant for that illegal act in issued.

Baiting does have something to do with curbing night shooting from camps. If you don't draw the deer in at night to see them under the light you can't shoot them. There were very few if any of those camps that used that same bait pile near the camp to hunt during the day.


----------



## Eastern Yooper (Nov 12, 2000)

Analogy: Some camps use their baitpiles to shoot deer from at night. Therefore, curbing baiting for everyone is a good way of solving this problem.

Analogy: Some people hammered nails into trees and littered on public property during the course of building blinds; therefore, severly restricting blinds for everyone is a good way of solving this problem.

Analogy: Some people use artificial lights to shine deer and illegally kill them. Therefore, severly restricting shining for everyone is a good way of solving the problem.

Analogy: Some people show wanton disregard for our natural resources while using an ATV and rampantly tear-up the countryside. Therefore, severely restricting ATV use for everyone is a good way of solving the problem.

Analogy: A 6 year-old finds a stolen gun in a crack-house, takes it to school and murders a classmate. Therefore, mandating trigger-locks for all gun owners is a good way of preventing similar tragedies in the future.

Interesting.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

You must life a secluded life Yooper. You know the baiting issue has nothing to do with the camps, TB and the debate that goes on within this site and all over for years.

I want you to tell me what purpose does anyone need to be out shining after 11 pm anyway. There is no legal hunting method you can use to locate game with a light to shoot. Take the kids out to show them deer, they are normally sleeping by 11 pm and you can do that prior to 11 pm. You want to scout for deer, go into the woods during the day, you'll learn more.

Blinds, you talk in circles, you better go back and read all my other posts for the many causes!

ATV's, get off the kick about some people, a lot of people. You obviously just want to shine at night, hunt over a truck load of bait, build a shack on the public's property and call it your own, riding your ATV to get there. Yes, I have trigger locks on everyone of my guns because I want to. If you don't that's fine maybe you are immune from a terrible thing happening to you. Your choice!

Sorry those arn't analogies, they are facts. Your analogies would be because you don't do something, there should be no law. Well wake up, not everybody is even close to being like you.

[This message has been edited by boehr (edited 12-02-2000).]


----------



## Pat Eddinger (Oct 21, 2000)

boehr,
Is there really no way to restrict the number of bloc permits to those land owners that don't allow hunters access?As an incentive somehow?There's gotta be a way.
You know the area where I'm at,and know about the huge land holdings and leases where no hunting is allowed,yet the bloc permits get passed out and from there sometimes sold to folks.I know that's illeagal!Max Hanley(The deceased!)used to poach the cornfields all summer on one of the places closed to hunters,and took quite a few Huge bucks.It's just a shame that we have the solution to the farmers problem and middle ground can't be found or forced.
I disagree with some of your opinions,but I would like to thank you and the rest in the enforcement side for what you folks do.
Idiots like Max Hanley take more than just deer away from us.Pat


----------



## Eastern Yooper (Nov 12, 2000)

boehr:

Obviously you and I are going to keep knocking-heads on some of these issues. I live a secluded life? What a self-righteous, condescending thing to say.

Folks: Its obvious that boehr is in favor of more laws to further choke the sportsmen of this great state. And therein lies the difference between my opponent boehr, and me:

I believe the men and women of this state are not staying-up late at night trying to find ways to violate. Apparantly boehr does, and he feels he is walking the thin blue line between maintaining order and outright anarchy in our state so far as hunting and fishing is concerned. I think if he was driving a State Police car, he'd be ticketing folks for doing 71 mph on the interstate. 
I'll sum it up like this: He trusts the governemnt and more laws; I trust you.

I believe the DNR should help people enjoy the outdoors, not control and dominate them.


----------



## stelmon (Sep 21, 2000)

i wonder the cost is for shooting a deer and not tagging it and then taking what u need and leave the carcass out there...I found 2 out while I was hutnig...boehr can u help on this one..Thanks

------------------
Stelmon, the only one.
Keep those bullets flying and reels screamen


----------



## mjp (Jun 30, 2000)

Before I get harpooned for this let me start by saying that I am in no way infavor poaching. That said, lets look at the numbers cited. 22 deer +11 turkeys + 1 bear = 34 not 60. Given tha thousands of folks that are in the woods this time of year I don't think that 34 illegally taken critters is all that bad, not acceptable but not too bad. I think that the vast majority of people in the woods are ethical law abiding folks and that the people who shoot deer with lights etc. are the exception. Now for the good part, I also think that the DNR works on the assumption that most people who venture afield are going to eventually violate. I'm not going to shoot any critter with a light and the 11pm rule assumes if I decide to go out some night after 11pm I may not be able to control myself. If I'm on my way home from work at midnight and see a good buck cross the road and I stop to put my headlights on him for a second I'm a violater, I don't think so. I also have a feed pile under a light off my deck, if there comes a rule against this because somebody shoots a deer from the house I guess I will be a violator because I will not stop because of some dumb ass. I think that many of the DNR rules are there because in the past people have acted in unethical ways and we are all being made to pay for it. The hardcore game hogs are not stopped by any of these rules, only the law abiding of us will. I'm afraid that sooner or later we will get to a point that all of us will be labeled a violator because of attempts by the DNR to regulate morality upon those who enjoy the outdoors.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

stelmon...the cost for an untagged deer is entirely up to the judge in the county where the violation happened. By law it is suppose to be a minumim of $50 and a maximum of $500 and 90 days, where in between that, it's up to the judge.

Yooper...the government is the people, the same ones you and I both vote for or don't you vote? You turn things around to make a point that really doesn't apply, and make statements and assumptions that you indicate I say that is an outright lie. I will not lower myself to your level by making personal references about you simply because I don't know you, I do know just a few of your opinions.

The DNR does not assume that everyone will violate sooner or later. It has always been the DNR's position that only about 2% of the people poach. I still believe that. Unfortunately, that 2% keeps CO's busy enough and thankfully we have a majority of the hunters out there that help us. Of course that leaves a few that are not poachers but they either don't care or don't want to become involved.


----------



## mjp (Jun 30, 2000)

Is it right them to pass rules that keep 98% of us from engaging in activiies which we would enjoy (point your headlights at a nice buck that crossed the road on your way back home from your deer stand) because of two %?


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2000)

wrong place 

[This message has been edited by sportsmaster (edited 12-03-2000).]


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

mjp...I will explain some points to you about shining that that yooper always leaves out. First, all shining laws are passed by the legislature, not the DNR. The DNR can make certain rules that effect seasons, limits etc., but many of those so called rules are confused with legislative action. Shining is one of those activities that can only be changed by the legislature. The DNR can and is frequently asked to provide information about shining and can support, stay nuetral, oppose, etc., legislation that effects the resources or hunters, etc., of this state. Sometimes, the DNR can make requests to the legislature for certain laws.

As far as shining, there is a current bill (SB0388) in the legislature that the DNR does not support without changes as currently written, to restrictive and many requirements are basically un-enforceable. This bill is a result of the public writing to their legislative representative and that senator or represenative agreed with those people and introduced a bill to change the law. That is how the first shining bill came into effect also.

Here is the link to the shining bill as well as other bills that are proposed. It would be wise for all of us that have an interest in what laws are being passed to keep an eye on these type of things. This link also provides the pros and cons of the bills and the reason why the bills are introduced.
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/legislation/ 

[This message has been edited by boehr (edited 12-03-2000).]


----------



## Eastern Yooper (Nov 12, 2000)

boehr states, "I will not lower myself to your level by making personal references.....". This flies in the wake of you making the arrogant, assanine remark that, "You must live a secluded life, Yooper". boehr, I took offense at that remark and the implications you made. What I thought would be a civil debate you instead chose to make personal. YOU drew first blood on this one. And FYI: I too, wear a uniform, carry a gun, and work for the state. I have attended college and have a degree in Law Enforcement. I have hunted and fished in this state for over 20 years and have never received a ticket for a hunting, fishing, ATV/snowmobile, or other outdoor-related activity.

Get off your high-horse. Your opinion is not the only one that matters here. You made reference that, "Thankfully, most people don't think like you do" and I will disagree. You have about 7-8 loyal followers here that are quick to blow sunshine on you at every opportunity. I think they need to get off your socks, but whatever. This mornings count of registered users stands at 842; I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of these folks share in my disgust at the myriad of laws the DNR has imposed upon us. Perhaps some of these people are intimidated by you; I don't know. I'm not, and I will speak my mind as I see fit.

You state that the government sets the laws and we vote for those people in office: Interesting. A FACT that boehr ALWAYS omits is that the Director AND the NRC are APPOINTED, not elected. BOTH parties have the abilities to set seasons, methods, limits, etc. WITHOUT legislative approval. Ever hear of an 'Administrative Rule, and does anyone remember proposal "G"? Hello.... HELLO? Proposal G gave the NRC the SOLE ability to regulate hunting, fishing, and trapping in Michigan. One of the yahoos currently on the NRC is a former restaurant entrepeneur.... thats his RAVING qualifications to dominate the sportsmen of this state. Did we elct those folks on the NRC? Hell no! They're buddies with out illustrious governor. Once again, boehr has demonstrated his ignorance.

Furthermore, one thing that stands out in all your posts is how obtuse you are in your thinking. For instance, your reference that "nobody needs to be shining after 11 p.m.". Just because YOU don't want to, doesn't mean that everyone should be prohibited. What reason, you ask? Apparantly you are unaware that not everyone works a Monday-Friday, 8-5 job. Believe it or not, some folks actually work until the wee hours of the morning. Perhaps these folks would want to shine some fields on their way home but OH! chalk-up another shining violation by some damn poachers! Gimme a break.

In closing, I cannot understand why the DNR remains so blind to the fact that they are TOTALLY out of touch with the sportsmen and women of this state. Attitudes such as yours are a contributing factor. We don't need new laws imposed on us. Period. If the Conservation Officers are unable/unwilling to enforce the existing laws, perhaps we need to replace them and find some officers who realize they are working FOR and WITH the people, not against them.

Florida overhauled their DNR a few years ago and re-wrote their mission statement in order to get back in touch with the sportsmen of the state. 

I think it is long overdue for that to occur here, too.


----------



## mjp (Jun 30, 2000)

Is there an easy way to find out which rules/laws originate from the DNR and which are from politicians.


----------



## watercop19 (Oct 3, 2000)

Hey Yooper, CHILL OUT!!!!


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Good for you Yooper, you read only what you want to read. Nobody is taking your opinion away from you, I don't see any of your opinions being deleted. They are there for all to read but I also can have an opinion as a CO and as a *hunter*. 

[This message has been edited by boehr (edited 12-03-2000).]


----------



## surveyor_scott (Oct 12, 2000)

Don't chill out Yooper. That is one of the things that makes this country great. Everyone has the right to express their opinion. The personal attacks are out-of-bounds by both of you. Boehr, I think there is some truth to what Yooper is saying. Try and think of it this way...these are some of the same arguments that are used in the gun control debates. "If guns are outlawed, then only Outlaws will have guns." I don't really think that more laws are the answer to our problems. If your inclined to poach no new law is going to stop you. I know one thing, it is very frustrating to pass up on deer during bow season, only to have the neighbors invite every person that they've ever met come shoot anything that moves on the gun opener. I am not completely informed on the block permits regulations, since I've never recieved one. Therefore, I'm not sure that this is a problem caused by the DNR, or that can be fixed by the DNR. What are the rules on them, who can get them, how many can they get, who gets to use them, what animals can be tagged with them, what methods can be used to kill the animal? I think if I had a better understanding of the rules, I would have a better idea if there are any violations.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2000)

WOW both YOOPER and boehr like to type  But i think Yooper does have so many valid points . I as an american am sick and tired of being punished bye the system because of the few. In ohio for instance if we pull in a drive to turn around and then back out and our lights shine a field we can be and WILL be CITED. I asked an officer here about he degree of the offence. He told me no matter what the offense was if the law was broken he WOULD ISSUE a ciation. Then kind of laughing to all of us there that they would have to get an attorney to get them off any way. I aked him to place him self under arrest fro littering as he threw HIS CIGARETTE down and mashed it in the ground and walked away. 

Every year in Ohio the DNR makes up so many new laws you need to be a lawyer to TRY and be on the safe side to hunt. 

[This message has been edited by sportsmaster (edited 12-03-2000).]


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Problem is I never stated I was for new laws. I was attempting to explain why exsisting laws came about. The only law I stated that I was for was the shining law and then I stated I and in fact, the DNR is not in support for the bill now in the legislature to change shining and make it even more restrictive.

I to am a hunter as a CO an I too am entitled to an opinion. Because I am a CO doesn't mean I can not post my opinion as any other hunter.

Taking the above posts into consideration, * Yooper, I apologize for any and all personal attacks against you.*


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

> I am not completely informed on the block permits regulations, since I've never recieved one. Therefore, I'm not sure that this is a problem caused by the DNR, or that can be fixed by the DNR. What are the rules on them, who can get them, how many can they get, who gets to use them, what animals can be tagged with them, what methods can be used to kill the animal? I think if I had a better understanding of the rules, I would have a better idea if there are any violations.[/B]


*As a CO* I will try to give you the short explanation of block permits. Previous, I know there has been I lawsuit, maybe two, against the DNR for crop damage and for the DNR to pay for that damage. Because of the issuance of antlerless permits and the issuance of, at that time, summer time crop damage permits, the lawsuit was dismissed. Because of the public (mainly hunters) outcry about summer crop damge permits, the DNR attempted to find a way for the hunters to possibly have an advantage for farmers to allow the hunters to hunt that property with damage. That was also in attempt to decrease the number of summer crop damage permits issued. At first, the block permits went crazy although it did and still has greatly reduced the number of summer crop damage permits. Since the first years of block permits, it has became better and more under control. Block permits, unlike antlerless permits, are only good for the property issued and adjacent property, for antlerless deer. They can not be used in the entire DMU. They can be used only during the proper season, bow during bow season, firearm during firearm season etc. A farmer, to obtain block permits, must have a history of confirmed damage for, I believe, one year prior to being able to obtain block permits. A wildlife biologist will make a recommendation as to how many block permits are issued depending on total acres, the area, amount of damage.

It would be nice to be able to get property with damage opened up to the public but I just don't see happening and know of no way to force that issue. Further, I think it would be wrong to force someone to allow someone else to hunt their property. What is the other alternatives. Well, we can pay the farmers for the crop damage, that's going to take millions from the Fish & Game Protection Fund.

As far as the driveway issue and shining, I don't know what CO you were talking to or if the conversation was in a joking tone or what. I will say, a ticket will, under those circumstances, never be issued in my district for that because I personally will order it dismissed and that officer will have some explaining to do.


----------



## Neapolis (Apr 22, 2000)

Sportsman - In what Ohio county you get told by a conservation officer that backing out of a driveway with your lights shining in a field might result in a ticket?


------------------
Neapolis
---------


----------



## surveyor_scott (Oct 12, 2000)

Thanks Boehr. I have a couple other questions regarding crop damage. Does someone make an actual field visit to observe the crop damage? Also, I've personally witnessed ***** doing crop damage that until that time I assumed to be deer. Is there anyway of knowing what type of animal did the damage? Short of witnessing it. If so, are the "field inspectors" trained to distinguish the difference? Also, Boehr I hope that you didn't think I thought you weren't entitled to an opinion. I did say "everyone". Thanks again.

[This message has been edited by surveyor_scott (edited 12-03-2000).]


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2000)

Boehr : If someone makes a mistake it takes a man to say i am sorry and ask for forgivness. I respect what you just did . I still think your A OK. nuff said 



[This message has been edited by sportsmaster (edited 12-03-2000).]


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

scott...I would like to say that yes a physical vist is made but since Wildlife Division is responsible for that and damage complaints vary in different parts of the state, I can't say for sure that a biologist makes a visit in every case, only in the majority. Our biologists are very well trained and definitely can tell the difference between deer, ****, bear and other critters that may cause damge.


----------



## Eastern Yooper (Nov 12, 2000)

I, too, extend my arm out for a 'cyber-handshake' and offer apologies to boehr and anyone else I may have offended.

It is not my intention to let things disintegrate into vile personal attacks.... yet I am guilty of it.

I suspect that we are more alike than we are different, and those differences could be worked out in a morning of fishing or sitting in a duck blind.

So: Consider me "chilled-out"..... for now. 

------------------


VEGETARIAN: Indian word meaning 'Bad Hunter'


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2000)

OR HELPING ME SPLIT FIREWOOD LOL


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

First, as far as the issues go I am in favor of baiting and opposed to poaching.
To answer questions asked of me;
"What does the new 'no-baiting' laws have to do with curbing the night shooting your neighbors used to do?" They simply couldnt place bait piles under their street lights because it was way too obvious.
"I hope you did the right thing and called the law after hearing those shots..... " DNR said they would "increase their patrol of the area"
And OK, maybe selfish...but I wish they would just leave my area. 
Lastly, I believe in areas that you can bait that you can legally shoot a deer from a cabin window as long as it is done during legal hours. The only opposing law I know of would be "shooting within a safety zone" This can still be done with written permision from the owner. Am I correct Boehr? &lt;----&lt;&lt;&lt;


----------



## bcat (Dec 4, 2000)

Hi There--I have been monitoring this post and have come to the conclusion, that many states have the same problem. In Wyoming they finally made the rule that you couldnt get a damage check from the F&G if you dont allow hunting on the land in question!! Easy answer!!! We have the same problem with Game commisioners being "appointed" by the governor. Lots of buddy buddy things go on with this type of appointment. Same problems different states. I gotta agree with the Yooper on most of his statements made and common sense should rule in this arguement or discussion. I think he was justified in his statements of trust and distrust when it comes to officails. Sometimes they are OK and sometimes they think the badge makes them a little better than anyone else. They always told me, that reformed poachers were what the game depts look for when hiring a warden!!!hehehe I guess they know all the tricks. Wyoming wont hardly even hire an in state person for thier game wardens. They get them from back east. People that were raised here and Know what the heck is going on are far more likely to object to some of the game departments decisions!!! THe easterners seem to take orders better, cause they dont know any better!!!bcat

------------------
If you're not the lead dog the scenery never changes


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

You are correct Joe about the safety zone.


----------



## DILLIGAF (Jul 19, 2000)

> Originally posted by mjp:
> *Before I get harpooned for this let me start by saying that I am in no way infavor poaching. That said, lets look at the numbers cited. 22 deer +11 turkeys + 1 bear = 34 not 60. Given tha thousands of folks that are in the woods this time of year I don't think that 34 illegally taken critters is all that bad, not acceptable but not too bad. I think that the vast majority of people in the woods are ethical law abiding folks and that the people who shoot deer with lights etc. are the exception. Now for the good part, I also think that the DNR works on the assumption that most people who venture afield are going to eventually violate. I'm not going to shoot any critter with a light and the 11pm rule assumes if I decide to go out some night after 11pm I may not be able to control myself. If I'm on my way home from work at midnight and see a good buck cross the road and I stop to put my headlights on him for a second I'm a violater, I don't think so. I also have a feed pile under a light off my deck, if there comes a rule against this because somebody shoots a deer from the house I guess I will be a violator because I will not stop because of some dumb ass. I think that many of the DNR rules are there because in the past people have acted in unethical ways and we are all being made to pay for it. The hardcore game hogs are not stopped by any of these rules, only the law abiding of us will. I'm afraid that sooner or later we will get to a point that all of us will be labeled a violator because of attempts by the DNR to regulate morality upon those who enjoy the outdoors.*


The other 26 violations are fish related. Also, this is only one weeks of reports from one publication!


----------



## BowHunt10 (Aug 30, 2000)

POACHERS SHOULD BE GIVEN A PINE BOX!!! I hate poaching and poachers. Bottom line is this, state reps, DNR, whatever get together and make/enforce the laws. What is a couple of $$$ to a poacher....nothing. 9 times out of 10 they dont have a license or carry one with them, so losing the right to hunt is not an issue or a "fine". Do you think a couple of dollars and a oh you lost your hunting for 3 years is going to do it, hell no. It is a crock of s##t what poacher are handed. The fine should be so big that the word spreeds like wildfire. Kinda like lose everything that brought you to the kill, lose everthing on you, starting at 5,000 dallar fine, and a minimum of 90days in jail. Then the sorry sons-of-b####'s would lose their job, ability to pay bills, thus losing their house and so on, i feel no pity for throughing a poacher out in the cold. Their is no difference between a murderer and a poacher, and it is sad that our DNR/State Reps dont see that. Just my 2 pennies.


----------



## Recurve (Dec 6, 2000)

It used to be if someone poached it was probably because they needed to feed their family. Nowadays, it seems like someone poaches to take a trophy animal because they don't know how to hunt "fair chase" and they want to be able to brag that they got a big buck. Slob hunters give us all a bad name. The same goes for those f*ckers that steal tree stands.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

BowHunt10,
I agree that poaching is a bad thing, but I think we need to keep things in perspective. After all, a deer is only an animal. Poaching encompasses a wide variety of activities. Say for instance a bowhunter is hunting over a baitpile. The baitpile has exactly 2.1 gallons of corn. The bowhunter shoots a doe off the pile, and tags it for the freezer. Technically he is a poacher. According to your sentiment, we should fine this gentlemen $5000.00, throw him in jail, confiscate all his equipment, and remove his hunting rights for X amount of time.
At the same time another gentlemen non-hunter is driving down the road and a HUGE 16pt. boone and crockett buck jumps out in front of his vehicle. The buck is killed, and left to waste and rot on the side of the road. Which is a bigger crime in your book? This gentlemen receives no reprimand whatsoever, and his deer goes to waste!
How valuable is a single deer? Is a deer worth destroying a persons record and life for? What if our hunter/poacher has a couple kids that depend on him for money and a home. A punishment that large would surely affect his family more than it would him. 
How valuable is a deer? During past winters, Michigan has lost tens of thousands of deer that were wasted. I did not see any huge supplemental feeding expenditures from the government to save these animals in the U.P. in 95 and 96. It seems it was ok, "cause the herd can rebuild".
How valuable is a deer when it costs $3.00 to harvest a doe?
65,000 deer are involved in car/deer accidents in Michigan every year. How valuable were these deer? I bet many more were killed by cars than by poachers, but this high collision rate does not seem to be a concern of hunters.
My point is this, The deer herd in Michigan is put and take. Just like Michigans fisheries. If deer are indeed so valuable to hunters that we attack poachers with such vigor, why do we not attack the roadkill and winterization problems with the same amount of vigor?
How valuable is a deer really? In my book, not more valuable than my and my families livelyhood. 
Poaching is wrong, but I have to say as long as the DNR sells doe permits for $6.00 and unlimited doe permits for $3.00, the value of a deer is not much more than that.
Just my opinion, and we all know it doesn't mean much.
Huntnut


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Hey before I get slammed for that post, let me say that there ARE different degrees of poaching. Someone shining and shooting a record buck on someone else's land from a truck is serious. Irregardless of the deer, many other laws are broken. Poaching the deer is not nearly nearly as important as HOW it was poached. I believe each case of poaching is unique and needs to be dealt with according to the circumstances. How about a 14 year old kid that shoots a squirrell in his subdivision backyard with a slingshot in the middle of summer...that too is poaching, but how serious do we take it? A small game license does indeed cost more than a doe permit!
Huntnut

[This message has been edited by Huntnut (edited 12-06-2000).]


----------

