# Ted Pleads Guity



## Elk5012

swampbuck said:


> [SIZE=+1]*Additional Hunting Rules*[/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=-1]*It is illegal to:*
> 
> Engage in hunting, fishing, trapping or gathering as a non-tribal member with a tribal member who is exercising a treaty right, unless the non-tribal person possesses a license from, and fully complies with the laws of the state of Michigan, including season dates, governing the activity.
> Hunt or pursue wild animals or birds from a car, snowmobile, aircraft, motorboat, personal watercraft, ORV or other motorized vehicle, or by a sailboat.
> Set fires to drive out game.
> Use snares, traps, cages, nets, pitfalls, deadfalls, spears, drugs, poisons, chemicals, smoke, gas, explosives, ferrets, weasels or mechanical devices other than firearms, crossbows, bows and arrows or slingshots to take wild birds or animals, except as provided by trapping rules or special permit.
> Buy or sell game, except as provided by trapping rules or captive wildlife permit.
> Destroy the identity of game or evidence of the sex of game while in the field or when transported in a motor vehicle. *Exception:* See Transportation of Game for deer, bear and elk.
> Hunt from a tree, raised platform or scaffold with a firearm. *Exceptions:* See Raised Platforms and Tree Stands for rules when hunting bear, deer, fox and coyote. Also see the 2011-2012 Waterfowl Hunting Digest for waterfowl hunting blind regulations.
> Hunt while under the influence of intoxicating alcohol or controlled substances.
> Use cartridges containing tracer or explosive bullets. A silencer or similar apparatus on a firearm is illegal.
> Camp on state land without a permit. Permits are free and are available at any DNR office. They must be posted at your campsite. A fee is charged for camping at designated campsites in state parks, recreation areas, state forest campgrounds and some state game areas.
> Make use of a dog in hunting deer, except that a dog may be used to locate a down or mortally wounded deer or elk if the dog is kept on a leash and none of the persons in attendance possess a firearm or bow and arrow. If the tracking is done at night, artificial lights ordinarily carried in the hand, or on the person, may be used. A dog that barks while tracking the deer shall not be used on public lands.
> Harm or harass a deer or bear when it is swimming in a stream, river, pond, lake or other waterbody.
> Kill or wound any game without making a reasonable attempt to retrieve the animal and include it in the daily bag.
> [/SIZE]
> 
> 
> [SIZE=-1]
> Shoot reptiles and amphibians with a firearm (including spring, air or gas propelled).[/SIZE]
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37704-31427--,00.html
> 
> We probably dont want to discuss that rule, but here it is.......How many of you guys bashing Ted have broken it?


 Now that very eye opening, I'm going to plead the 5th on this one. This includes birds, small game & big game. I never knew this part of the law. Call me "Ted" on this one!


----------



## noshow

Elk5012 said:


> I guess if we shoot a deer (or any animal) and can't find it, we have to tear up one of our tags and call it a loss or we become a so called poacher too.


 Exactly right. It is my own rule that if i ever shoot a deer and lose it then i will burn one of my tags. I may not have found it but i consider that a dead deer.


----------



## noshow

Elk5012 said:


> Now that very eye opening, I'm going to plead the 5th on this one. This includes birds, small game & big game. I never knew this part of the law. Call me "Ted" on this one!


 Never new that either. I would just do that on my own anyway.


----------



## TK81

Kill or wound any game without making a reasonable attempt to retrieve the animal and include it in the daily bag. 

The way that is worded leaves it open to interpretation. Prior to reading this thread, I just assumed that it meant you couldn't kill or wound and then not make the effort to retrieve and then continue hunting. I figured if you made the effort and failed, you could continue on without adding it to your bag. That's how it works when you lose a fish.

Now I'm not sure.

Typical DNR rules. Should have separated those two points with period. If the intent is as the previous comments assume, then the 2nd sentence could have said, "Any animal killed or wounded counts towared the daily bag." Would have eliminated any doubt.

My guess is that you will probably find that not all LEO's / CO's interpret it the same way either.

Back to Ted. Great Guitar. Right side of the fence. Way over the top. Way I look at it, all these rich guys that fly all over on safari are poachers of some type...go hunt on a fenced ranch to shoot game fed a special diet (I realize this wasn't the case in Alaska). Maybe I am just jealous.


----------



## poz

One question I have is where is the guide outfitters in all of this. I doubt it was a doing it yourself hunt. You would think the guide would have told him he couldn't shoot another bear.


----------



## Fatdaddy

Iam still having nightmares! A very large eight last year and my thick gloves for opening day. Fired at an angle and had a wounded head mount and good food running off. secound shot was towards a dirt seasonel road, didnt want to take a chance on hitting someone. So I passed the rear neck shot at 50 yards. Two road cruising dips seen it cross another road and gave chase to my buck. After tracking for a .5 miles see them jump it and tracked it back around to private property. Land owner said if theres blood you dont need to ask(private hunt club). He seen it I tracked for three days.. didnt find it put my gun away as well as my bow as coyotes beat me to a high shot and found on the secound day.. cleaned my gun and headed home after a nice fire and steaks. Still had a great time with lots of regrets but No more tags to play..Didnt know the law just thought it was the right thing to do!! Oh and the owner of the hunt club has said that Iam more than welcome at there fire. So I guess I did gain some respect and new freinds


----------



## TVCJohn

fish em all said:


> I do not think it had any thing to do with Obama Supporters, in the military the president, no matter who he is, if you like him or not, he is the commander and chief and to make a "threat" to the president requres military backing the president. In this case seperating themselves from ted.


That's just it....the SS looked into it, determined there was no threat and everyone moved on. Now the Army makes a decision based on what....???? I'll stick with the enough people complained or certain people complained and the Army felt they needed to appease those who may have complained. Earlier I read some of the reader comments at the link above. When I looked at them, many of the readers were questioning the Army's actions. 

It's a little interesting in that the Damned Yankees includes Ted and Tommy Shaw of Styx who is also billed to play at Ft Knox at the same show. 

I think alot of folks use a broad brush trying to infer a game law violation is poaching when in this instance it doesn't appear to be the case.


----------



## fairfax1

Walk us through your logic: Poaching is a game law violation. But game law violations are not poaching?

(BTW......I think, but don't know for sure, the term "poaching" is a colloquial term and not encoded in the law.) 

In Nugent's situation it is strictly incumbent upon him to know what he can do and cannot do legally when travelling to different jurisdictions for the purpose of killing & filming any of that jurisdictions' public game animals. And most especially so when done for commercial gain. 


No jurisdicitons wants businessmen to come into their state to kill the public animals for commercial profit ....and do so without strict adherence to the local laws. Think about it, what non-commercial sportsman could tolerate profiteers harvesting game and breaking the laws intended to protect that game. That seems too obvious to even mention. 

To be sure, if he had an outfitter....which is likely.....well that outfitter failed him. But the responsiblity always must lie with the commercial entreprenuer using the weapon.....not the hired help.


----------



## poz

fairfax1 said:


> Walk us through your logic: Poaching is a game law violation. But game law violations are not poaching?
> 
> (BTW......I think, but don't know for sure, the term "poaching" is a colloquial term and not encoded in the law.)
> 
> In Nugent's situation it is strictly incumbent upon him to know what he can do and cannot do legally when travelling to different jurisdictions for the purpose of killing & filming any of that jurisdictions' public game animals. And most especially so when done for commercial gain.
> 
> 
> No jurisdicitons wants businessmen to come into their state to kill the public animals for commercial profit ....and do so without strict adherence to the local laws. Think about it, what non-commercial sportsman could tolerate profiteers harvesting game and breaking the laws intended to protect that game. That seems too obvious to even mention.
> 
> To be sure, if he had an outfitter....which is likely.....well that outfitter failed him. But the responsiblity always must lie with the commercial entreprenuer using the weapon.....not the hired help.


I have to disagree, although you should know the rules, that is what you pay a guide for. It's impossible to know every rule and every rule that has changed in the last couple of years. If it's a DYS hunt than you should know it all. But when you pay a guide you are trusting him to keep you legal.
When GM goes to open plants overseas they hire lawyers and people to go through the laws and stuff with with them if they get wrong info and break the law. Which has happened. They pay a fine. Is GM a criminal now.


----------



## swampbuck

And we all recieve a hunting guide when we purchase a license. How many didnt know this section was in there.....

Kill or wound any game without making a reasonable attempt to retrieve the animal and include it in the daily bag


----------



## TSS Caddis

swampbuck said:


> And we all recieve a hunting guide when we purchase a license. How many didnt know this section was in there.....
> 
> Kill or wound any game without making a reasonable attempt to retrieve the animal and include it in the daily bag


I read that as make every attempt to recover the animal and "if I do recover" then it will be counted in my bag.


----------



## TVCJohn

fairfax1 said:


> Walk us through your logic: Poaching is a game law violation. But game law violations are not poaching?
> 
> (BTW......I think, but don't know for sure, the term "poaching" is a colloquial term and not encoded in the law.)


 
The way I view the context of the term poaching is the intentional act to shoot an animal out of season, maybe intentionally trespassing to shoot something, illegally hunting at night for a non-legal target, maybe shooting DNR decoys off the road, baiting to hunt out of season, intentionally not tagging/reporting your kill, etc.

The way I do not view the context of the term poaching is for violations such as not wearing enough hunter orange, too small of broadhead, too much bait, left your license in the truck, too small of shot, etc. 

I see it as what's the intent of the person? In Ted's case, unless he knew the law changed since his last bear hunt there, he would be guilty of not knowing the new rules....even if his guide should have told him (which I think he should have as a professional guide). I don't see Ted's case as a poaching case. Not knowing the new rule change...yes, intentional poaching...no.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Anybody else find it a little odd that the State of Alaska has not brought any charges or alleged that Ted poached a bear or broke any hunting regulations in this case? These were Federal charges. The allegation is not that he illegally killed a bear, it's that he violated the Lacey Act and transported an illegally killed animal across state lines. 

It seems pretty odd that the Feds would prosecute a misdemeanor case like this, instead of simply alerting the appropriate officials in Alaska and allowing them to bring charges in State Court.

No secret that Ted is a high profile and outspoken critic of this administration and that he is also a huge GOP supporter. While I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, I'm also not naive to the fact that a lot of hard ball and dirty tricks occurs during the course of national political campaigns and we are in fact in an election year. 

From Nugent's standpoint, it would make sense for him to accept a plea in this case, regardless of whether he was guilty or not. If he took it to trial, it could potentially be bumped up to a felony, which would preclude him from owning firearms if convicted, it would drag out for years and he would end up paying significantly more in legal fees than the fine he agreed to. 

If the Alaska fish and game department had brought charges that he violated the applicable hunting rules, I'd be a little bit more inclined to view this as a substantive breach of ethics but this case has the taint of a politically motivated attempt to embarrass and marginalize a popular conservative spokesperson and from the remarks made by many of the posters on this and other forums, it appears that it might have been a pretty successful one. 

It would seem like the Justice Department might have something better to do than prosecuting misdemeanor violations that occurred three years ago, ya think?


----------



## boostfan

Very interesting Munster

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## griffondog

Munsterlndr said:


> Anybody else find it a little odd that the State of Alaska has not brought any charges or alleged that Ted poached a bear or broke any hunting regulations in this case? These were Federal charges. The allegation is not that he illegally killed a bear, it's that he violated the Lacey Act and transported an illegally killed animal across state lines.


Nope it's used all the time. Instead of charging someone with a 100 fine in there home state wait till they cross state lines and use the lacey act. Have one pheasant over possession limit or a waterfowl without a wing and you get the federal charges. Used all the time on non-residents buying a resident lisc. and taking the game home with them. Film everything you do and put it on the tube,dish the prez and your show is prime time for the feds to watch.

Griff


----------



## fairfax1

A plausible argument is being made that Teds outspoken political views expose him to greater scrutiny. We can believe that. The very nature of the bully-pulpit is to elevate the spoken and the speaker to attention. And if those spoken views spin towards criticism.which I think we all can agree Teds most certainly do, well, should it surprise anyone that it is incumbent on the speaker to be extra-vigilant in his adherence to all laws?

And in the body of law that revolves around the already sensitive issue of killing animals for entertainment.AND.to do that in the context of a non-resident celebrity commercial entrepreneur.well, hellsbells!.... nobody should be surprised that Nugent got whacked when a law was broken.

Celebrity involvement may help sell the trinkets but it also may help sell the idea that anybody who breaks our laws will pay the consequences. The upside in this incident for the law enforcement role of the regulators is that it shows theyll get their man no matter how famous, so all hunters ---famous and not-so ---should take care.

What Ted was doing in Alaska was business. A for-profit operation. As such, there is certainly an implied burden..a recognized burdenthat nothing be done that will create the appearance that money or fame --allows one to break game laws. We sportsmen wouldn't want it any other way.

Nugent has profitted by his notoriety. 
What we have here is....the flip side.

So be it.


----------



## billmitch

Fairfax, great post and very true. I have always liked Ted, but what I'm realizing now is that I don't know really who the he'll he is. Now that I'm seeing his actions. If this were my regular hunting buddy, I'd be shopping for another hunting partner or going it alone. Him speaking for us is becoming a double edged sword.


----------



## Munsterlndr

griffondog said:


> Nope it's used all the time. Instead of charging someone with a 100 fine in there home state wait till they cross state lines and use the lacey act. Have one pheasant over possession limit or a waterfowl without a wing and you get the federal charges. Used all the time on non-residents buying a resident lisc. and taking the game home with them. Film everything you do and put it on the tube,dish the prez and your show is prime time for the feds to watch.
> 
> Griff


I'm somewhat skeptical about the Lacey act being used "all of the time", to prosecute isolated misdemeanor violations. From doing a little Googling, it appears that it's used primarily in large scale poaching operations involving lots of people acting in a conspiracy. Not exactly the case in Ted's scenario. 

As far as the assertion that a different standard should be applied to those engaged in commercial activities or to those who are high profile individuals, I'll have to respectfully disagree. The entire basis of our legal system is an equal application of the law. It is extremely unlikely that almost any other Alaskan hunter would have been prosecuted in the manner that Nugent was, had they done the same thing. It's highly questionable whether the case would have resulted in a conviction, had it gone to trial. The only evidence that the prosecution had was some video shot by Nugent's crew that was inconclusive at best and would probably not even be admissible in court as evidence. Absent that video, there is not much of a case. 

One other point, I took the time to look at the Alaskan hunting guide. While this event occurred a couple of years ago and the guide was slightly different my guess is they are pretty similar. There are two pages dedicated specifically to bear hunting regulations, included in the 40 pages of regulations. On those two pages, there is no mention of rule that Nugent supposedly violated. The only reference to that rule is two lines buried in a long portion devoted to bag limits. Not sure that most hunters in Alaska were even aware of this somewhat arcane rule. While that's certainly not an excuse, it does make the prosecution of such a rule by the Federal Government, somewhat surprising. I'd bet a fair amount of money that the Feds have never prosecuted anyone else on that basis.


----------



## jafurnier

Mr. Ted has dared cross The Emperor!


----------



## fishindude644

Luv2hunteup said:


> Ted is getting a lot of press lately; he must have a come back tour planned.
> 
> 
> *For the full story click on the link.*
> http://news.yahoo.com/ted-nugent-agrees-plead-guilty-illegal-kill-003506839.html


 Media vultures are really digging. Never was really impressed with Ted. Anyone can shoot a trophy in a cage. Money can get you the best hunts. He has alot of good points be he is definily not perfect.


----------



## Robert Holmes

How many out of state fishermen (snaggers) have been busted over the years under this act? It is out there and it serves a purpose. Sorry about your luck Ted.


----------



## griffondog

Munsterlndr said:


> I'm somewhat skeptical about the Lacey act being used "all of the time", to prosecute isolated misdemeanor violations. From doing a little Googling, it appears that it's used primarily in large scale poaching operations involving lots of people acting in a conspiracy. Not exactly the case in Ted's scenario.


I know of it being used on over limit of pheasants coming out of South Dakota. Waterfowl without a attached wing out of North Dakota. Non-resident using a resident tag Michigan to Ohio. Non- residents taking bobcat out of Nevada. These are from people I have talked to over the years doing outdoor shows.

I was once on a guided waterfowl hunt in Texas in which all the guides carried two guns into the field claimed it was legal in Texas. I was having no part of it as I new the Federal law. Last day of snow goose hunt Feds check us. All the guides get tickets. Officer informs me all birds shot with them are illegal and cant be transported across state lines as to Lacey act. Left all the birds in Texas from hunt.

Had a group of friends who coyote hunted Nevada every year. Use to join them for a couple weeks every year in January. Week after I left a couple years ago Nevada fish and wildlife stops by motel room. Someone called on them for running a illegal guiding operation. Was illegal for me to buy them dinner every evening at the local diner. I was paying for there services. Nothing came from it but the first thing out of the officers mouth was they would be charged with a lacey act violation if the pelts were transported across state lines if they were guiding. So it is the trump card used quite often to get you to plea bargain in a case.

Griffondog


----------



## glockman55

Munsterlndr said:


> Anybody else find it a little odd that the State of Alaska has not brought any charges or alleged that Ted poached a bear or broke any hunting regulations in this case? These were Federal charges. The allegation is not that he illegally killed a bear, it's that he violated the Lacey Act and transported an illegally killed animal across state lines.
> 
> It seems pretty odd that the Feds would prosecute a misdemeanor case like this, instead of simply alerting the appropriate officials in Alaska and allowing them to bring charges in State Court.
> 
> No secret that Ted is a high profile and outspoken critic of this administration and that he is also a huge GOP supporter. While I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, I'm also not naive to the fact that a lot of hard ball and dirty tricks occurs during the course of national political campaigns and we are in fact in an election year.
> 
> From Nugent's standpoint, it would make sense for him to accept a plea in this case, regardless of whether he was guilty or not. If he took it to trial, it could potentially be bumped up to a felony, which would preclude him from owning firearms if convicted, it would drag out for years and he would end up paying significantly more in legal fees than the fine he agreed to.
> 
> If the Alaska fish and game department had brought charges that he violated the applicable hunting rules, I'd be a little bit more inclined to view this as a substantive breach of ethics but this case has the taint of a politically motivated attempt to embarrass and marginalize a popular conservative spokesperson and from the remarks made by many of the posters on this and other forums, it appears that it might have been a pretty successful one.
> 
> It would seem like the Justice Department might have something better to do than prosecuting misdemeanor violations that occurred three years ago, ya think?


 
Best Post !! you nailed it..


----------



## fishdip

TSS Caddis said:


> I read that as make every attempt to recover the animal and "if I do recover" then it will be counted in my bag.


Yes you are correct, you dont cont it unless you HARVEST IT.


----------



## poz

fishdip said:


> Yes you are correct, you dont cont it unless you HARVEST IT.


wrong if that animal is wounded, and not recovered it counts. it keeps people from over shooting the species they are hunting. take duck, goose hunting hunting for instance if I shoot a bird and lose it in the marsh, it counts, go tell a CO that you shot 10 ducks and only recovered 6 and see what he says


----------



## griffondog

poz said:


> wrong if that animal is wounded, and not recovered it counts. it keeps people from over shooting the species they are hunting. take duck, goose hunting hunting for instance if I shoot a bird and lose it in the marsh, it counts, go tell a CO that you shot 10 ducks and only recovered 6 and see what he says


Don't think so. It's written that way to make sure you recover game. Keeps you from sitting in your blind blazing away and not recovering any shot game.

Griffondog


----------



## poz

griffondog said:


> Don't think so. It's written that way to make sure you recover game. Keeps you from sitting in your blind blazing away and not recovering any shot game.
> 
> Griffondog


Exactly I can't sit and shoot 100 ducks and only recover 6 and say I'm legal, because I couldn't find the other 94 and say I'm legal because I made an effort to find them but I couldn't . Once 6 are down because of me I'm at my limit.


----------



## griffondog

poz said:


> Exactly I can't sit and shoot 100 ducks and only recover 6 and say I'm legal, because I couldn't find the other 94 and say I'm legal because I made an effort to find them but I couldn't . Once 6 are down because of me I'm at my limit.


I hope this makes it clear to you if not I give up.

The following are examples of Federal and State (Maine) Statute on Wanton Waste:

50 CFR 20.25 Wanton waste of migratory game birds.

No person shall kill or cripple any migratory game bird pursuant to this part without making a reasonable effort to retrieve the bird, and retain it in his actual custody, at the place where taken or between that place and either (a) his automobile or principal means of land transportation; or (b) his personal abode or temporary or transient place of lodging; or (c) a migratory bird preservation facility; or (d) a post office; or (e) a common carrier facility.

According to 12 M.R.S. § 11224, a person may not waste a wild bird or wild animal that has been wounded or killed by that person while hunting. For purposes of this section, "waste" means to intentionally leave a wounded or killed animal in the field or forest without making a reasonable effort to retrieve and render it for consumption or use. A person who violates this section commits a Class E crime.


----------



## Rzr

griffondog said:


> Don't think so. It's written that way to make sure you recover game. *Keeps you from sitting in your blind blazing away and not recovering any shot game.*
> Griffondog


In my opinion, the only way to make sure everybody recovers game is to *first* _count_ that wounded game against the daily or seasonal limit.

It's a pretty simple concept and effective one as well on a lot of levels (teaching kids being the most important).


----------



## poz

griffondog said:


> I hope this makes it clear to you if not I give up.
> 
> The following are examples of Federal and State (Maine) Statute on Wanton Waste:
> 
> 50 CFR 20.25 Wanton waste of migratory game birds.
> 
> No person shall kill or cripple any migratory game bird pursuant to this part without making a reasonable effort to retrieve the bird, and retain it in his actual custody, at the place where taken or between that place and either (a) his automobile or principal means of land transportation; or (b) his personal abode or temporary or transient place of lodging; or (c) a migratory bird preservation facility; or (d) a post office; or (e) a common carrier facility.
> According to 12 M.R.S. § 11224, a person may not waste a wild bird or wild animal that has been wounded or killed by that person while hunting. For purposes of this section, "waste" means to intentionally leave a wounded or killed animal in the field or forest without making a reasonable effort to retrieve and render it for consumption or use. A person who violates this section commits a Class E crime.


I understand the wanton waste part. But in Michigan if you wound an animal and and after making attempts to recover it, but don't recover it. It counts toward your daily limit. I got lucky enough to accompany someone on a Michigan ELK hunt. At orientation the DNR told the hunters be smart with your shots if you wound an ELK and can't find it to contact the DNR. After they investigate they will determine to see if you can continue hunting or if the wounded one counts against your tag. They also said vary rarely do they allow you to shoot another one. So make sure you make a good shot. Your wounded ELK counts as your bag limit.


----------



## poz

The way to stop wanten waste is to include wounded game in your daily limit. Then no hunter is every taking more than the daily limit including the wounded ones. It makes no sense to allow someone to shoot 100 ducks and be legal just because he made efforts but didn't retrieve them.


----------



## boostfan

poz said:


> The way to stop wanten waste is to include wounded game in your daily limit. Then no hunter is every taking more than the daily limit including the wounded ones. It makes no sense to allow someone to shoot 100 ducks and be legal just because he made efforts but didn't retrieve them.


A sportman does not need a law to tell them not to shoot 100 ducks and keep 5. Most people who would take part in wanton waste, will do it regardless of a law.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## fishdip

griffondog said:


> I hope this makes it clear to you if not I give up.
> 
> The following are examples of Federal and State (Maine) Statute on Wanton Waste:
> 
> 50 CFR 20.25 Wanton waste of migratory game birds.
> 
> No person shall kill or cripple any migratory game bird pursuant to this part without making a reasonable effort to retrieve the bird, and retain it in his actual custody, at the place where taken or between that place and either (a) his automobile or principal means of land transportation; or (b) his personal abode or temporary or transient place of lodging; or (c) a migratory bird preservation facility; or (d) a post office; or (e) a common carrier facility.
> 
> According to 12 M.R.S. § 11224, a person may not waste a wild bird or wild animal that has been wounded or killed by that person while hunting. For purposes of this section, "waste" means to intentionally leave a wounded or killed animal in the field or forest without making a reasonable effort to retrieve and render it for consumption or use. A person who violates this section commits a Class E crime.


Thanks Griffondog, because I already gave up on these guys that cant copprehend.


----------



## Munsterlndr

poz said:


> But in Michigan if you wound an animal and and after making attempts to recover it, but don't recover it. It counts toward your daily limit.


I do not believe this to be the case. You have to make a reasonable effort to recover an animal if you suspect that you wounded it but there is no inherent requirement that unrecovered animals have to be included in your daily limit, based on Michigan law. The Elk hunt may be a unique situation because of the limited number of elk and the lottery aspect of the hunt but in general, counting unrecovered animals against the daily bag limit is not required.


----------



## kdogger

The actual wildlife conservation order:



> Chapter IV
> Possession, Importation and Sale
> 4.1 Possession of animals; duty to retrieve game animals.
> Sec. 4.1 A person may possess any animal or parts of any animal, from this state, or from outside of this state, whether living or dead, only as provided by this section:
> (1) Game lawfully taken, acquired, and transported may be possessed by any person.
> (2) Live game taken from the wild shall not be possessed. Wounded game, reduced to possession, shall be immediately killed and included in the daily limit. A person shall not kill or wound any game animal without making a reasonable attempt to retrieve the animal and include it in their daily limit.


There are 2 points here:

1) Any game possesed must be included in the daily limit.

2) You may not kill or wound game without making a reasonable attmpt to possess it.

***You do not posess game you reasonably attempt to recover by cannot****** 

For example, you shoot a deer and it runs onto the neighbor's property. IF the neighbor does not give you permission to enter the property, you will never gain possession of the deer and it does not count toward your bag limit. Because you ask the neighbor, you made a reasonable attempt to retrieve the deer and have broken no law.


----------



## Munsterlndr

kdogger said:


> The actual wildlife conservation order:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 points here:
> 
> 1) Any game possesed must be included in the daily limit.
> 
> 2) You may not kill or wound game without making a reasonable attmpt to possess it.
> 
> ***You do not posess game you reasonably attempt to recover by cannot******
> 
> For example, you shoot a deer and it runs onto the neighbor's property. IF the neighbor does not give you permission to enter the property, you will never gain possession of the deer and it does not count toward your bag limit. Because you ask the neighbor, you made a reasonable attempt to retrieve the deer and have broken no law.


Exactly right, unrecovered game does not count towards your bag limit.


----------



## poz

Munsterlndr said:


> Exactly right, unrecovered game does not count towards your bag limit.


I could be reading it wrong, I just sent a email off to the DNR legal to see what they say is right. Will post as soon as I get a response.


----------



## bucko12pt

Ted said he"never knowingly violated any game regulations". I for one,
cannot believe that of the 11 misdemeanors he was convicted for in CA, he didn't know that he was shooting an illegal racked buck and it was illegal to hunt over bait. Maybe some of the other things, but not those two.

As to the Lacey Act. I worked with a guy who's uncle was convicted under the Lacey Act for illegally harvesting a B&C bear in Colorado and transporting it back to Michigan. He was hunting with a group of 4 and one guy bought a tag and the uncle shot a bear and tagged it with the other guys tag. He was turned in by a jealous hunter that hunted with the group and not asked back on future hunts. The Feds chose to make an 
example of him and when it was all said and done, including fines, costs, tranportation costs to CO for him and his attorney 5 times, attorney fees, costs to send two CO investigators to MI, etc,..................................$ 87K. :yikes:

He had to borrow from his retirement funds and he is now a not very happy convicted felon, who can no longer own guns, or hunt in 34 different states. 

Doesn't seem that violating is worth it some times!! :nono:


----------



## TVCJohn

This just came out about 12 hours ago on Youtube. Ted is talking to Glen Beck about the Alaska bear, the California deer, having to kill his pigs and now his exotics the Feds are going after. You get to hear the other side of it.


----------



## frzngfshr

This is just another reminder that we as voters here in America we need to do our do diligence and educate ourselves about who we vote for. I'm starting with the man in the mirror I feel I've buried my head long enough for the first time in my life im very scared where this country is headed.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Elk5012

Yeah all you Ted Nugent party poopers, you all got caught up in the media's report and never heard the other side.


----------



## hypox

I can't believe the amount of sportsman that would rather side with the liberal media, than Ted Nugent.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## billmitch

I'm not siding with liberals. Teds gone off the reservation. Sitting there on that show justifying his poaching. This guy is not helping us anymore. He's become an anchor around the neck of law abiding sportsmen.


----------



## vsmorgantown

frzngfshr said:


> This is just another reminder that we as voters here in America we need to do our do diligence and educate ourselves about who we vote for. I'm starting with the man in the mirror I feel I've buried my head long enough for the first time in my life im very scared where this country is headed.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


I agree and I hope more people are waking up! Also, the video is not of Ted "justifying his poaching", if that is all you take from watching this video you truly don't have a clue or care about the direction our country his headed and you can't see past your hatred of Ted to understand the points being made.
Is Ted a saint or perfect, no, we all have our flaws but, the issues he is raising are of great importance and concern. 
Ted mentions "fast and furious", Have you ever heard of "fast and furious"? Maybe you should look it up because its a hell of a lot more important than a wanton waste issue!!


----------



## billmitch

Saying the law is stupid or obscure is justifying his poaching. How the hell can you guys side with him? This is his second time in a year. Are you accusing the liberal media of lying about his illegitimate kids with like 8 different women? This guy for all his conservative values and morality doesnt live the way he preaches to us. He verbally accosted a female reporter last week, asking if shed like if he fck..d her. Some role model. You guys are pathetic.


----------



## vsmorgantown

My point is the video and issues raised in the video are more important than "Ted". 
There are several issues brought up that directly affects me, you and every, red blooded, Amercian! i.e. property rights, illegal search and seizures, "fast and furious", "federal agents breaking down and kicking in doors"?? (they didn't have Charles Manson cornered!!).
Main point...again....there are a lot more important issues being raised in the video than losing a wounded bear (and then shooting another) and I feel it is worth watching because it is a brief, albeit small, commentary on the course our country is on.


----------



## billmitch

Yes, I agree there are more important issues then Ted, but the title of this thread is self explanatory. Just because there are more important things then game laws doesn't give anyone an excuse to break those laws. The more pressing issues can and are discussed in the sound off forums. Writing this off because the world has bigger problems is bullcrap. We didn't ask Ted to be our representative. If he's going to play that role voluntarily, the least he can do is do it responsibly.


----------



## Robert Holmes

kdogger said:


> The actual wildlife conservation order:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 points here:
> 
> 1) Any game possesed must be included in the daily limit.
> 
> 2) You may not kill or wound game without making a reasonable attmpt to possess it.
> 
> ***You do not posess game you reasonably attempt to recover by cannot******
> 
> For example, you shoot a deer and it runs onto the neighbor's property. IF the neighbor does not give you permission to enter the property, you will never gain possession of the deer and it does not count toward your bag limit. Because you ask the neighbor, you made a reasonable attempt to retrieve the deer and have broken no law.


A DNR officer can go onto private property in an attempt to help you recover game. The animal belongs to the people of the state of Michigan until it is legally tagged. If the neighbor puts a tag onto the deer you might be out of luck. Don't hunt on the fenceline.


----------



## TVCJohn

Robert Holmes said:


> A DNR officer can go onto private property in an attempt to help you recover game. The animal belongs to the people of the state of Michigan until it is legally tagged. If the neighbor puts a tag onto the deer you might be out of luck. Don't hunt on the fenceline.


If the neighbor tagged a deer he didn't legally harvest or shoot, I'd think the neighbor is breaking the law? The neighbor maybe the one out of luck at the end of the day.


----------



## DFJISH

billmitch said:


> Saying the law is stupid or obscure is justifying his poaching. How the hell can you guys side with him? This is his second time in a year. Are you accusing the liberal media of lying about his illegitimate kids with like 8 different women? This guy for all his conservative values and morality doesnt live the way he preaches to us. He verbally accosted a female reporter last week, asking if shed like if he fck..d her. Some role model. You guys are pathetic.


Exactly! I'm a lifetime hunter and have been proactive for decades. I am ashamed that this arrogant bully is seen as a representative of hunting. His attitude and behavior completely smothers any positive message he has. It's a sign of the times that some of the younger generation of hunters actually look up to someone with such an obnoxious and offensive demeanor. We really need to distance ourselves from this rude caveman and hope he fades into oblivion soon so that someone else will come forward to represent our sport with dignity and respect.


----------



## Elk5012

He has done more and will continue to do more for hunting and our gun rights than any of us keyboard jockey's will ever do. Like him or hate him it's our rights, so enjoy.


----------



## poz

kdogger said:


> The actual wildlife conservation order:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 points here:
> 
> 1) Any game possesed must be included in the daily limit.
> 
> 2) You may not kill or wound game without making a reasonable attmpt to possess it.
> 
> ***You do not posess game you reasonably attempt to recover by cannot******
> 
> For example, you shoot a deer and it runs onto the neighbor's property. IF the neighbor does not give you permission to enter the property, you will never gain possession of the deer and it does not count toward your bag limit. Because you ask the neighbor, you made a reasonable attempt to retrieve the deer and have broken no law.


I am still in contact with the DNR about this. But what I recieved so far is that if I set up my stand in a place that I don't have a reasonable attempt to retrieve my game and I shoot game I must count unrecovered game in my limit. For example, if I'm duck hunting and because of my set up I might lose a duck because it goes into deeper water and my dog can't get it and i don't have a boat. I have to include it in my bag limit, with the thought of if i am not prepared for every possible retrieve scenario I shouldn't be hunting ducks there. Now I asked the same question pertaining to deer hunting. If i set up in an area that I know that if i wound a deer and I am not allowed to track it or retrieve it from that property. Do I count it in my daily limit. To me it would seem that the same scenario with the ducks would apply. In both cases I set up to hunt in areas that limit my abilities to retrieve the game I shot. I will post all responses I receive from the DNR when I get them


----------



## i missed again

Robert Holmes said:


> A DNR officer can go onto private property in an attempt to help you recover game. The animal belongs to the people of the state of Michigan until it is legally tagged. If the neighbor puts a tag onto the deer you might be out of luck. Don't hunt on the fenceline.


the DNR CAN NOT retrieve the deer without permission from the owner and the owner can not tag the deer unless he clames he shot it if permission is not granted the deer will go to waste ( dumb but true ) the bottom line is if you shoot a deer and it goes on privet property you will lose it without the owners permission to retreve it


----------



## billmitch

Elk5012 said:


> He has done more and will continue to do more for hunting and our gun rights than any of us keyboard jockey's will ever do. Like him or hate him it's our rights, so enjoy.


What exactly has he specifically done? Most non hunters I know think he's a wacko, and the law abiding guys I know think his time has come and gone. He has done some good... A long time ago. He hasn't been socially relevant in 2 decades. Even if he was able to actually effect positive change anymore, I fail to see how that allows him to commit illegal acts, and act like a foul mouthed buffoon.


----------



## frenchriver1

Elk5012 said:


> Yeah all you Ted Nugent party poopers, you all got caught up in the media's report and never heard the other side.


What is the "other side?" Facts please, not a conglomeration of hot air and self serving puffery...


----------



## Elk5012

I'm not his press secretary, look up all the interviews he does, and with whom. I think his rants are because the media has fooled you into to believing he is wrong and he can't believe how many people are sheep and will follow the politically correct. Do I agree with everything he says? NO , but this is still America and we can still speak on our rights and freedoms while we still have them.


----------



## billmitch

Elk5012 said:


> I'm not his press secretary, look up all the interviews he does, and with whom. I think his rants are because the media has fooled you into to believing he is wrong and he can't believe how many people are sheep and will follow the politically correct. Do I agree with everything he says? NO , but this is still America and we can still speak on our rights and freedoms while we still have them.


I'm a sheep because why? The media haven't fooled me into anything. How is anybody removing his free speech rights because Ted illegally killed 2 animals this year alone? Teds free speech is alive and well, in fact it's so well I wish I could remove it. I don't even know what your defending. 
Fact. He killed and tagged and transported an animal illegally. Poaching.
Fact. He killed a deer using illegal methods in California. Poaching.
Now please explain to me how I have taken away his rights?


----------



## Elk5012

If you personally don't like the man, take it up personally with him. I don't know how I became the spokes person for him.


----------



## billmitch

Elk5012 said:


> If you personally don't like the man, take it up personally with him. I don't know how I became the spokes person for him.


Coming on here and defending his illegal activities? Sounded like you were his pr guy. Sorry I got confused


----------



## frenchriver1

Elk5012 said:


> If you personally don't like the man, take it up personally with him. I don't know how I became the spokes person for him.


 
You are the one who suggested we get the facts, so what are they??? I take the court decisions to be the facts, versus the hot air that one will spew to defend themselves after the courts have ruled...


----------

