uncle ted, the poacher?

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:40 am

Well he did it again, breaking the law...... I would expect him to go by the book and be an example of the right way to do things for future generations.

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/ted-n ... lang=en-us

jwnissen · Post by **jwnissen** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:20 am

If you look into it more, the article I read on Fox news said that he didnt even know that law existed! His guide should have known and should have been held accountable as well. He has apologized, paid his $10,000 fine and is not allowed to hunt or fish for a year. Everyone makes a mistake and he is one of our biggest supporter of hunting rights. There are a lot more people out there that do a lot more. He video taped it, so if he was intentionally poaching, do you honestly think it would have been professionally video taped and then aired? Sonething to think about.

jwnissen · Post by **jwnissen** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:22 am

I meant to say the judge in the case didnt know as well and Ted has to do a bi-weekly broadcast about what he did and air it on his shows.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:28 am

So ignorance is a good excuse? If I go hunting in a different state you can be sure I'm reading every line in the regulations and studying them. There is no excuse. Regulation books are free, you can read on the plain, and be sure that your following all the rules.

There are plenty of outfitters who will take you hinting and a few break laws so customers can shoot record book animals (like posting public land as private, soaping water holes, driving animals away from hunters, stealing kills...) So you can't tell me all outfitters can be left to thier own and expected to follow rules 100% of the time. As a established steward of the land and activist, he should be aware of his status and spend 15-30 minutes reading the regulations.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:17 am

ultracarry wrote:So ignorance is a good excuse? If I go hunting in a different state you can be sure I'm reading every line in the regulations and studying them. There is no excuse. Regulation books are free, you can read on the plain, and be sure that your following all the rules.

There are plenty of outfitters who will take you hinting and a few break laws so customers can shoot record book animals (like posting public land as private, soaping water holes, driving animals away from hunters, stealing kills...) So you can't tell me all outfitters can be left to thier own and expected to follow rules 100% of the time. As a established steward of the land and activist, he should be aware of his status and spend 15-30 minutes reading the regulations.

Doesn't sound like he made any excuse but rather paid his dues. I have listened to some of the stuff you come up with on some of these posts that were no more legal than what happened with Ted.

I think it just depends who is looking for something to critize but you are right ignorance is no excuse but it sure is a reason why so many screw up.

Ezzy

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:21 am

Very interesting that I break the law ezzy. Trying to get where you come up with this stuff.... Then again I did get my last warning so I won't argue with you. You are always right I'm sorry.

wems2371 · Post by **wems2371** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:05 pm

Not exactly his first violation...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outpost ... ntest.html

Now do I think he intentionally broke the law in regards to the bear. Oh, no way. He's making all that money off of the crowd that watches him.

Wouldn't want to cut your own throat right? Perhaps he should read the regulations for the state's he's hunting in.

Edit: Removed an inflammatory remark that Uncle Ted would be proud of. :roll:

BigTub · Post by **BigTub** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:03 pm

When you watch the Glen Beck interview, you get a whole different flavor to the story.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/26/wat ... ull-story/

I say God bless Uncle Ted.

JIM K · Post by **JIM K** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:05 pm

jwnissen wrote:If you look into it more, the article I read on Fox news said that he didnt even know that law existed! His guide should have known and should have been held accountable as well. He has apologized, paid his $10,000 fine and is not allowed to hunt or fish for a year. Everyone makes a mistake and he is one of our biggest supporter of hunting rights. There are a lot more people out there that do a lot more. He video taped it, so if he was intentionally poaching, do you honestly think it would have been professionally video taped and then aired? Sonething to think about.

MISTAKE, how many does he need to make before he goes by LAW.
this is not first. just think on ones he did not get caught at.

i wont get ignorant about this person but he is not one i would ever want to be friends with or as for support.

JIM K · Post by **JIM K** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:08 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
ultracarry wrote:So ignorance is a good excuse? If I go hunting in a different state you can be sure I'm reading every line in the regulations and studying them. There is no excuse. Regulation books are free, you can read on the plain, and be sure that your following all the rules.

There are plenty of outfitters who will take you hinting and a few break laws so customers can shoot record book animals (like posting public land as private, soaping water holes, driving animals away from hunters, stealing kills...) So you can't tell me all outfitters can be left to thier own and expected to follow rules 100% of the time. As a established steward of the land and activist, he should be aware of his status and spend 15-30 minutes reading the regulations.
Doesn't sound like he made any excuse but rather paid his dues. I have listened to some of the stuff you come up with on some of these posts that were no more legal than what happened with Ted.

I think it just depends who is looking for something to critize but you are right ignorance is no excuse but it sure is a reason why so many screw up.

Ezzy

ezzy, this is not TEDS first one. trust me, there is more in his past,1 time he had 15 violations on 1 offense, 15.
he said, I DID NOT KNOW.
he needs a OLE BACKSTRAP accross the head.

JIM K · Post by **JIM K** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:23 pm

BigTub wrote:When you watch the Glen Beck interview, you get a whole different flavor to the story.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/26/wat ... ull-story/

I say God bless Uncle Ted.

remember,THIS IS ONLY TEDS SIDE.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:30 pm

JIM K wrote:
BigTub wrote:When you watch the Glen Beck interview, you get a whole different flavor to the story.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/26/wat ... ull-story/

I say God bless Uncle Ted.
remember,THIS IS ONLY TEDS SIDE.

Yep but it has been confirmed to be accurate. I know he has made some mistakes but overall he has probably been the voice that gets heard so I am hoping he keeps some of these stupid things in the limelight so people can see just how much the government intrudes in areas they know nothing about.

Ezzy

SHORTFAT · Post by **SHORTFAT** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:18 pm

A few years back I spent some time with him on two different occassions in a private setting with no public or media around. I can honestly say he is sincere in his beliefs and I do not think he disregards the law. Anyone who spends the number of days afield that he does will have unknowingly violated a number of specific regulations. I do not believe he committed those violations flagrantly or intentionally... I do believe he is a prime target for some media and politically motavated people with an agenda. I don't always agree 100% with what he does or says, but I don't think he is a poacher or a criminal...

Fireside · Post by **Fireside** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:16 pm

SHORTFAT wrote:A few years back I spent some time with him on two different occassions in a private setting with no public or media around. I can honestly say he is sincere in his beliefs and I do not think he disregards the law. Anyone who spends the number of days afield that he does will have unknowingly violated a number of specific regulations. I do not believe he committed those violations flagrantly or intentionally... I do believe he is a prime target for some media and politically motavated people with an agenda. I don't always agree 100% with what he does or says, but I don't think he is a poacher or a criminal...

+1

I know too many people that hunt out of their own state and even out of their home country. They engage well regarded guided and rely on them to know the local laws. If you have spent any time at all hunting, it is likely that you have somehow managed to violate some game law. Nugent owned up to his offense and took his lumps like a big boy.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:26 pm

Well based upon him pleading guilty, having an over limit, I think you can say poached is the right term. I actually like what he says, not what he does... Believe me if you spend that many days afield, specially in a tree stand or ground blind (havent observed him spot and stalk) you have plenty of time to read the regulations. There is no excuse, except the one he gave. No matter how you put it he did what he did and shouldn't be able to get off because he is a celebrity... He is just giving the true hunters a black eye... He should stick to high fence hunts where there are no rules.

He didn't take his lumps, he pleaded down... Taking lumps would be showing Il to court like a man, telling your story, admitting 100% guilt without an "I didn't know excuse" and taking what the judge gave... Instead people entered with him, represented him, and got off by using his money.

A lot of us hunt out of state and read regulations, follow regulations, and don't get in trouble. It's easy to obey the law.

JIM K · Post by **JIM K** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:51 pm

ultracarry wrote:Well based upon him pleading guilty, having an over limit, I think you can say poached is the right term. I actually like what he says, not what he does... Believe me if you spend that many days afield, specially in a tree stand or ground blind (havent observed him spot and stalk) you have plenty of time to read the regulations. There is no excuse, except the one he gave. No matter how you put it he did what he did and shouldn't be able to get off because he is a celebrity... He is just giving the true hunters a black eye... He should stick to high fence hunts where there are no rules.

He didn't take his lumps, he pleaded down... Taking lumps would be showing Il to court like a man, telling your story, admitting 100% guilt without an "I didn't know excuse" and taking what the judge gave... Instead people entered with him, represented him, and got off by using his money.

A lot of us hunt out of state and read regulations, follow regulations, and don't get in trouble. It's easy to obey the law.

1 of his last I DID NOT KNOW LAWS hunting trip he had 15 violations. his lawyer got it reduced to 3 violations.then he PLEAD GUILTY.

i bet SOON the NRA will be dropping TEDDY

SHORTFAT · Post by **SHORTFAT** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:38 am

I bet they won't. Most of the charges are garbage and if you think this isn't a left wing propaganda campaign I have news for ya... I love how everyone says "plead guilty, take it like a man!" .. until they get charged with something... :roll: I see it every day.

Ruffshooter · Post by **Ruffshooter** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:42 am

I got a say that beyond the laws broken: Just out of plain ole ethical standing: ( I believe he wounded one bear already). That should have been it for that state hunt. Not to mention he is big as life and there are many that want him to fall. Those people are the ones we fight against constantly to keep our rights. I believe much as he does. Wish he would think before he acts and in the manner he speaks.

Does anyone know if they found the other bear? Was he sited because of the video of the hunts or because one of the guides turned him in? Or did the warden watch this unfold, Instead of stepping in and making sure he understood the law? Just curious.

I also blame the guides they should have stepped up.

We all make mistakes. We pay our dues, try not to fail again and work to use our failures to better our selves and to help others not make the same mistakes.

ckirsch · Post by **ckirsch** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:41 am

If folks would take a minute to watch the video, they might take a different perspective. Seems fairly clear that Nugent has some big crosshairs on his back, and the lefties in various government agencies obviously want to shut him down.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:53 am

Lol if he was doing everything legally, he wouldn't get "wounded" by the leftie's gun. I don't need to load a video of him playing down a law, making an excuse, or saying that the laws don't make sense. They are there for a reason, obey them, and you will have no problem.

DonF · Post by **DonF** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:39 am

ckirsch wrote:If folks would take a minute to watch the video, they might take a different perspective. Seems fairly clear that Nugent has some big crosshairs on his back, and the lefties in various government agencies obviously want to shut him down.

Big crosshairs on his back. Exactly and that is why he should make an even bigger effort to know the laws of what he does. If you or I did the3 same thing it wouldn't be all over the news, with him? Yet and if he doesn't know that by now he'sot a very smart guy. I have never cared for the guy myself. Seem's like everything I've read about him and the little I've listened, he's an in your face kind og guy. There are things that go along with his image, he's found them!

JIM K · Post by **JIM K** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:49 am

the arresting officer in alaska is REPUBLICAN too.

i guess he is LEFTY out to get NUGENT again.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:34 am

JIM K wrote:the arresting officer in alaska is REPUBLICAN too. i guess he is LEFTY out to get NUGENT again.

Sounds like the officer is actually doing his job without being biased and enforcing the laws regardless. It's almost like he took an oath... Naaa couldn't be.

He is Ted nugent the king of the NRA, he should be allowed to do what ever he wants because the laws don't meet what Ted believes. Ted wants to shoot everything in sight, bait deer (even when not legal), and sell TV add space. The heck with those that are true sportsmen and want to project hunting fishing and the use of firearms in a good light. Darn those who want all laws enforced no matter who the person breaking them happens to be.

I'm a republican, life member of the NRA, I go to banquets, raffles, donate money, and don't think teddy deserves to be hunting. He seems like a serial violator and needs the weapons confiscated that he committed the crimes with, vehicle should also be taken, privlidges to hunt all public land revoked for 5 years minimum in all states. Ohh btw he is a Law Enforcement Officer so he is supposed to be held to a higher standard (unless they already took his badge away).

RoostersMom · Post by **RoostersMom** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:53 am

Several interesting things in this thread.

1) inference that THEY want to shut Ted up about hunting and fishing: It's a commonly known fact that conservation officers really want people to do less hunting. Job security you know. :roll:

2) He doesn't deserve a ticket because he didn't know the rules (and the judge maybe didn't know them either - on that note, many judges aren't familiar with the ins and outs of game laws - that's what the agents/officers are for): I am forever amazed by the conspiracy nuts that think because someone is caught doing something illegal and actually, gasp, ticketed.... then somehow, the world is out to get them.

3) He is a spokesperson for hunting, he does need to adhere to the law and even go above and beyond. He makes plenty of money - he ought to have someone reliable working for him that will make sure things are done within the law. Kids watch his show....adults too, but it doesn't do our sport (hunting) any good to have a spokesperson for hunting and fishing ticketed numerous times for multiple violations. He's a public figure...he needs to keep the act clean.

ckirsch · Post by **ckirsch** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:58 am

Ultra;

I applaud you for you membership in the NRA, and for your involvement in the struggle to preserve Second Amendment rights. You seem, however, to be pretty quick to judge Nugent. If he's truly overstepped the law, then he obviously deserves the same consequences any of us would receive. It does appear that in some cases (the Alaskan bear case, in particular) he's being held to a much higher standard than most would be. It would seem a bit naive to completely discount any political motivations for his prosecution, given that his strong positions on a controversial issue are at odds with many in the government. The guy puts a significant amount of energy into Wounded Warriors and other pro-military programs, along with the Make-A-Wish hunts for terminally ill kids and other charitable causes. He's clearly no saint, but he can't be all bad.

JimK;

We get it. You have a thing for Nugent. You're on two FORUMS now, with a CAMPAIGN of oddly-Worded RANTS against HIM using strangely RANDOM capitalizatioN. We also understand that you don't care for "Sanitorium". Given your proclivity to condemn Nugent and his work with the NRA, I'm curious as to what your personal resume might read in regards to efforts to protect the Second Amendment. If you're in the trenches fighting to save our right to bear arms, you're in a position to criticize him. If that's not the case, well........

DogNewbie · Post by **DogNewbie** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:21 am

ckirsch wrote:Ultra;

I applaud you for you membership in the NRA, and for your involvement in the struggle to preserve Second Amendment rights. You seem, however, to be pretty quick to judge Nugent. If he's truly overstepped the law, then he obviously deserves the same consequences any of us would receive. It does appear that in some cases (the Alaskan bear case, in particular) he's being held to a much higher standard than most would be. It would seem a bit naive to completely discount any political motivations for his prosecution, given that his strong positions on a controversial issue are at odds with many in the government. The guy puts a significant amount of energy into Wounded Warriors and other pro-military programs, along with the Make-A-Wish hunts for terminally ill kids and other charitable causes. He's clearly no saint, but he can't be all bad.

JimK;

We get it. You have a thing for Nugent. You're on two FORUMS now, with a CAMPAIGN of oddly-Worded RANTS against HIM using strangely RANDOM capitalizatioN. We also understand that you don't care for "Sanitorium". Given your proclivity to condemn Nugent and his work with the NRA, I'm curious as to what your personal resume might read in regards to efforts to protect the Second Amendment. If you're in the trenches fighting to save our right to bear arms, you're in a position to criticize him. If that's not the case, well........

I'm pretty sure the max penalty was $20,000 in fines and 5 years in prison. He paid $10,000 and has to play public service announcements for a few year on his TV show. I'd say they judged him quite fairly considering his previous mistakes. What do you want from them? Let him off the hook completely? He made a mistake and he's paying the consequences. The only standard he's being held to is that he needs to follow the law.

ckirsch · Post by **ckirsch** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:01 am

Not sure how I could be any more clear that I believe he should suffer the same consequence as anyone else if he indeed broke the law. It sounded to me as if that particular law had rarely, if ever, been enforced, and was obscure enough that even the locals were unaware of it. If you can point out where I stated that he should be let off the hook completely, please do so, and I'll retract it.

I guess what it comes down to, for most of us, is our position for the Second Amendment, and to a lesser degree, our perspective of Nugent. If you're not especially concerned about the erosion of freedoms regarding gun ownership, or if you find Nugent's energy and passion for that cause to be over the line, you might take some satisfaction seeing him taken down. If you're on the other side of the fence, you're more inclined to cut him some slack. I'm disappointed with some of his actions, but I've not seen enough of the facts yet to want to see him thrown out of the NRA. I still believe that on balance, the guy is good for our cause. I'll concede that he'd be even better without the controversy.

DogNewbie · Post by **DogNewbie** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:24 am

ckirsch wrote:Not sure how I could be any more clear that I believe he should suffer the same consequence as anyone else if he indeed broke the law. It sounded to me as if that particular law had rarely, if ever, been enforced, and was obscure enough that even the locals were unaware of it. If you can point out where I stated that he should be let off the hook completely, please do so, and I'll retract it.

I guess what it comes down to, for most of us, is our position for the Second Amendment, and to a lesser degree, our perspective of Nugent. If you're not especially concerned about the erosion of freedoms regarding gun ownership, or if you find Nugent's energy and passion for that cause to be over the line, you might take some satisfaction seeing him taken down. If you're on the other side of the fence, you're more inclined to cut him some slack. I'm disappointed with some of his actions, but I've not seen enough of the facts yet to want to see him thrown out of the NRA. I still believe that on balance, the guy is good for our cause. I'll concede that he'd be even better without the controversy.

I never claimed you said that. I was asking what your expectations were toward how this situation should be handled, so thank you for clarifying. I'm not sure how this law has been enforced in the past, but I would guess that you are correct in that it is rarely enforced. But I would also guess it's rarely enforced because the lack of personnel to actually enforce it. Alaska isn't exactly teaming with law enforcement and I'm sure they have more important things to do that try to solve crimes they, A. don't know happened, and B. have no real leads as to who committed the crime. But, Ted just so happened to video tape it and play it on national TV, solving both issue A and B, thus he is charge with the crime. Should he not be held accountable simply because others have got away with the crime in the past? Most robberies go unsolved, but if I rob a house and post a picture of me doing so on facebook and get caught should I not suffer the consequences of robbery because the large majority of robbers don't get caught?

I also completely disagree that this has anything to do with the right to bear arms. This has to do with someone who mistakenly broke the law, got caught doing so, admitted to unwittingly breaking the law and honorably being willing to suffer the consequences and then dishonorably complaining about the whole situation and trying to make it seem like this is about more than just him breaking the law.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:33 am

ckirsch wrote:Not sure how I could be any more clear that I believe he should suffer the same consequence as anyone else if he indeed broke the law. It sounded to me as if that particular law had rarely, if ever, been enforced, and was obscure enough that even the locals were unaware of it. If you can point out where I stated that he should be let off the hook completely, please do so, and I'll retract it.

I guess what it comes down to, for most of us, is our position for the Second Amendment, and to a lesser degree, our perspective of Nugent. If you're not especially concerned about the erosion of freedoms regarding gun ownership, or if you find Nugent's energy and passion for that cause to be over the line, you might take some satisfaction seeing him taken down. If you're on the other side of the fence, you're more inclined to cut him some slack. I'm disappointed with some of his actions, but I've not seen enough of the facts yet to want to see him thrown out of the NRA. I still believe that on balance, the guy is good for our cause. I'll concede that he'd be even better without the controversy.

Amen!!!! I don't quite understand how or why your personal opinion of the guy should be the reasoning for judging anything he does as right or wrong. After all, he has the same rights we all have, no more or no less. I just can't make a valid judgement of him on the basis of liking him instead of based on the facts which none of us know. Always interesting to see who does the judging and being privedged to know those of you that are perfect and have never screwed up. Think I remember something about glass houses and throwing stones.

Ezzy

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:06 pm

Well here is a different way to look at it.

If the officer completes the documents, submits them to his supervisor who approves them, forwards them to the district attorney who believes they have a case, then the attorney puts everything on the table, then the defense attorney takes his clients (defendants) testimony and evidence on the table. I think the judge has an unbiased opinion (unless in the 9th district) to give a ruling....

So if that is your name, your cause you have always been fighting for, and you honor... And you were innocent. You would prob fight for your innocence. BTW money is not an issue in this because he could have also had a public defender represent him.

BTW a house made out of thin single pain glass should not have been approved by the building inspector Ezzy.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:33 pm

BTW a house made out of thin single pain glass should not have been approved by the building inspector Ezzy.

Good point.

Ezzy

markj · Post by **markj** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:26 pm

I wonder why he didnt go after the one he first shot as it did bleed.

I was caught one time, got out of the field, removed the shell in the chamber kept the ones in the mag in. Put it in the back of the truck and got in then drove off to the next field was 100 yards down the lane. DNR pulled us over and did a gun check

found shells in the mag gave me a ticket for over 100 bucks due the very next friday not a month later. I paid it, no arguement as it was a violation no matter not one person was in the back of the truck. Took a chance as I always did in that area, I knew the DNR guy too. Now I follow the exact letter of the law while in the field. Them fines are expensive and I am not wealthy.

He shoulda went after that first bear and killed it IMHO.

Georgia Boy · Post by **Georgia Boy** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:24 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
JIM K wrote:
BigTub wrote:When you watch the Glen Beck interview, you get a whole different flavor to the story.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/26/wat ... ull-story/

I say God bless Uncle Ted.
remember,THIS IS ONLY TEDS SIDE.
Yep but it has been confirmed to be accurate. I know he has made some mistakes but overall he has probably been the voice that gets heard so I am hoping he keeps some of these stupid things in the limelight so people can see just how much the government intrudes in areas they know nothing about.

Ezzy

I actually agree with you for once

Ron R · Post by **Ron R** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:32 pm

Ted Nugent is still AWESOME and I'm glad that he is the spokesperson that he is!!! I can't believe the sack on some of these guys calling him a poacher :roll: . He is a great American that has done so much for our country, our soldiers, our rights, and our sport (hunting). Only a fool would concider him an enemy to the sportsman. He still has my support and he always will.

birddogger · Post by **birddogger** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:18 pm

Ron R wrote:Ted Nugent is still AWESOME and I'm glad that he is the spokesperson that he is!!! I can't believe the sack on some of these guys calling him a poacher :roll: . He is a great American that has done so much for our country, our soldiers, our rights, and our sport (hunting). Only a fool would concider him an enemy to the sportsman. He still has my support and he always will.

Same here!! Great post!

Charlie

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:26 pm

birddogger wrote:
Ron R wrote:Ted Nugent is still AWESOME and I'm glad that he is the spokesperson that he is!!! I can't believe the sack on some of these guys calling him a poacher :roll: . He is a great American that has done so much for our country, our soldiers, our rights, and our sport (hunting). Only a fool would concider him an enemy to the sportsman. He still has my support and he always will.
Same here!! Great post!

Charlie

HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU.

Ezzy

Max2 · Post by **Max2** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:46 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
birddogger wrote:
Ron R wrote:Ted Nugent is still AWESOME and I'm glad that he is the spokesperson that he is!!! I can't believe the sack on some of these guys calling him a poacher :roll: . He is a great American that has done so much for our country, our soldiers, our rights, and our sport (hunting). Only a fool would concider him an enemy to the sportsman. He still has my support and he always will.
Same here!! Great post!

Charlie
HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU.

Ezzy

I have to say I'm of the same opinion.

northern cajun · Post by **northern cajun** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:36 pm

[

ezzy333 wrote:
birddogger wrote:
Ron R wrote:Ted Nugent is still AWESOME and I'm glad that he is the spokesperson that he is!!! I can't believe the sack on some of these guys calling him a poacher :roll: . He is a great American that has done so much for our country, our soldiers, our rights, and our sport (hunting). Only a fool would concider him an enemy to the sportsman. He still has my support and he always will.

Good assessment. Everyone makes mistakes he is paying for his.

And heck I have to ask Ultra do you reduce your bag limit when you think you may have wounded and animal either elk hunting, quail hunting etc if you see a feather fall from the sky and not the bird do you count that as part of you limit. Are you 100% sure you never left game in the field?
Judge and Jury must be nice. Nobody is perfect and if you want to look at role models look at the track history of what some of our presidents have done not exactly stellar because we are all human.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:06 pm

If I hit something it counts... Ended my Arizona elk hunt with a 6x6 I couldn't find... Three guys 3 days on the side of a mountain and couldn't even find a track. Too dusty but I knew I hit him and found blood for 15 yards. my dad shot a bull in Colorado and we spent four days looking and eventually had to go home. Once I shot at a deer, mulies tend to hop and hit his leg. tracked him 6 hours and killed him. Would he have survived? Who knows. But yes if I shoot at a big game animal and I hit them it sure as heck counts. I will run myself in the ground looking for an animal I shoot.

I don't shoot more than 2-4 birds locally and don't hunt for limits. Don't really want to kill to many. They are better used for training. Plus there aren't too many good bird spots within an hour drive of my house and brad27 let's me use one spot of his.

I'll tell you if I ever knock down 6 birds I can't find, I will go home.

Also the reason why Alaska prob put that rule in the regulations is because people wouldn't try... Sounds like they hit the nail on the head with that one.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:41 pm

ultracarry wrote:If I hit something it counts... Ended my Arizona elk hunt with a 6x6 I couldn't find... Three guys 3 days on the side of a mountain and couldn't even find a track. Too dusty but I knew I hit him and found blood for 15 yards. my dad shot a bull in Colorado and we spent four days looking and eventually had to go home. Once I shot at a deer, mulies tend to hop and hit his leg. tracked him 6 hours and killed him. Would he have survived? Who knows. But yes if I shoot at a big game animal and I hit them it sure as heck counts. I will run myself in the ground looking for an animal I shoot.

I don't shoot more than 2-4 birds locally and don't hunt for limits. Don't really want to kill to many. They are better used for training. Plus there aren't too many good bird spots within an hour drive of my house and brad27 let's me use one spot of his.

I'll tell you if I ever knock down 6 birds I can't find, I will go home.

Also the reason why Alaska prob put that rule in the regulations is because people wouldn't try... Sounds like they hit the nail on the head with that one.

Wasn't an Alaska rule it was federal and just for that one region. Explain that.

Ezzy

twofeathers · Post by **twofeathers** » Tue May 01, 2012 3:06 am

Our local DNR I've known for a long time, even before he was the DNR and he will tell you take any group of hunters out and before they make it 50Yds he could find someone to write a ticket. Not to say that he does but rather there are more laws than what gets posted in your regulations pamphlet. I've had to ask him a few questions that I could not find any law about that he had to contact state authorities and still took a week to find the answer. Just saying the laws do not always tell you what you CAN do rather what you shouldn't do and those are even sometimes vague.

Post by **ezzy333** » Tue May 01, 2012 7:42 am

twofeathers wrote:Our local DNR I've known for a long time, even before he was the DNR and he will tell you take any group of hunters out and before they make it 50Yds he could find someone to write a ticket. Not to say that he does but rather there are more laws than what gets posted in your regulations pamphlet. I've had to ask him a few questions that I could not find any law about that he had to contact state authorities and still took a week to find the answer. Just saying the laws do not always tell you what you CAN do rather what you shouldn't do and those are even sometimes vague.

The thing that proves it to me is you can not get to DNR Officers to agree on what the rule book says as they all have different interpretation of what the laws say.

Ezzy

dakotashooter2 · Post by **dakotashooter2** » Tue May 01, 2012 8:35 am

Sorry but Uncle Teds not getting a free ride from me on this one. Read the #*&%@ regulations. Not only that if he was the sportsman he claimed to be he would have quit after he wounded the first bear. It's not illegal in most places and I know most people don't consider a wounded animal, harvested" and continue to hunt but some truely ethical hunters quit after wounding game. Ethics isn't how you act when someone else sees you it's acting properly when no one is around to see.

Bottom line!!! His taping of the hunt was a bust without a dead bear on film....so he shot another one. If he was as ethical as he claims he would not have done that...legal or not. I for one question Teds ethics... I think he plays way to close to the edge most of the time......... The thing about ethics is.... if you have cause to question it then it probably isn't ethical.

DogNewbie · Post by **DogNewbie** » Tue May 01, 2012 9:14 am

Ron R wrote:Ted Nugent is still AWESOME and I'm glad that he is the spokesperson that he is!!! I can't believe the sack on some of these guys calling him a poacher :roll: . He is a great American that has done so much for our country, our soldiers, our rights, and our sport (hunting). Only a fool would concider him an enemy to the sportsman. He still has my support and he always will.

How is he not a poacher? He illegally killed an animal. That's poaching. Even if it's a mistake it's still poaching. So yes, Ted is a poacher and when the hunting spokesperson is a poacher it reflects negatively upon the sport. But maybe I'm just a fool.

Post by **ezzy333** » Tue May 01, 2012 11:42 am

DogNewbie wrote:
Ron R wrote:Ted Nugent is still AWESOME and I'm glad that he is the spokesperson that he is!!! I can't believe the sack on some of these guys calling him a poacher :roll: . He is a great American that has done so much for our country, our soldiers, our rights, and our sport (hunting). Only a fool would concider him an enemy to the sportsman. He still has my support and he always will.
How is he not a poacher? He illegally killed an animal. That's poaching. Even if it's a mistake it's still poaching. So yes, Ted is a poacher and when the hunting spokesperson is a poacher it reflects negatively upon the sport. But maybe I'm just a fool.

So when you shoo a hen pheasant BY MISTAKE YOU ARE A POACHER AND SHOULD HAVE YOUR VEHICLE, GUNS AND LICENCES taken away for the next few years.

I don't think anyone is saying that Ted is always right but I am saying he is on the right side and because of that he is targeted. There is a difference.

By the way, do all of you quit hunting deer when you hit one with your truck and kill it when you are on your way to your hunting area? And should you also be imprisoned or just criticized when you shoot and antlered doe thinking it was a buck? Should we lose our license or be put in prison because you have a slug in your vest while bird hunting, or using a Red Dot scope on your deer hunting gun? Should we all be punished for driving 56 in a 55 MPH zone or is just turning ourselves in good enough? And don't forget the dreaded radar detector that should result in losing your driving privileges forever. Or maybe losing our privilege to trial anymore when the scout finds your dog out of bounds chasing birds it flushed and he sneaks it back to the front without telling the judge what it did? Or is it OK to break the rules as long as you don't get caught? I kind of wonder if that isn't what most people are saying and how they live when they aren't finding fault with what some else is doing.

Should all of us lose our privilege to do anything if we make a mistake? Or should we just blame Bush and do it again?

Ezzy

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Tue May 01, 2012 12:42 pm

Ezzy you are old enough to be able to make those ethical decisions. If you want to shoot with a red dot scope go ahead. I won't stop you, if you want to speed through a school zone, go ahead. I'm not here to stop anyone from doing what they want to do.

You seem to have lost touch. To say I have broke laws and not have anything to back.it up then rant about how laws are broken all the time to justify your or someone else's actions. I'm done with this topic. Have a good day. Maybe you would benefit from an "ethical decision making" class at your local community college.

wems2371 · Post by **wems2371** » Tue May 01, 2012 12:58 pm

IF shooting a hen pheasant by mistake, was in the state regulations as poaching, then obviously you would be a poacher and all penalties would pertain. There's a whole lot of difference between accidently hitting a hen, with no regs regarding that -- and shooting and knowingly wounding one bear and then going after another, when the regs prohibit it. The regs were supposedly written in the Alaskan DNR hunting guide for that year. While I don't believe you can go back and look at previous guides online, it is written in the current guide that everyone can view. By definition, if he wounded/killed over the limit, did he not poach the 2nd bear...or should we pretty it up, because we have some of the same ideals about hunting, politics, etc? Do I think it's a heinous unforgivable crime, that can't be amended with restitution? No, and I would hope for the same opportunity, if I found myself in that situation.

For me, being a 2nd time offender, is getting a touch ridiculous. If you aren't going to read state regs before you hunt, maybe you could at least read them before you put the hunt up on national television for the DNR officers to watch. :roll:

This more than likely would not have been as big an issue if someone else had done it. Ted puts much of the target on himself IMO, as he likes to call names and push his agenda with a big club. And he's an available poster child for every anti- out there to use as an example. In this recent poll, fellow gun owners are divided as to whether he's a help or a hinderance to the cause, with the majority on the hindrance side.

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/legal- ... wners.html

markj · Post by **markj** » Tue May 01, 2012 2:29 pm

By the way, do all of you quit hunting deer when you hit one with your truck and kill it when you are on your way to your hunting area?

I call 911, the deputy gives me a salvage tag and I go hunt. Isnt this the way it is in yer state? I bet it is.

Accidently shooting a hen isnt so bad, almost everyone has done it. I count it in the bag if I ever do it, havent since I was like 14 tho. Ted just seems to get himself in hot water a lot lately. He is getting older now and maybe should take heed, maybe use a guide that knows the laws. He paid for it tho so what do I care? Would I hang with the sledge? no, not much of a fan altho I would love to hear some fred bear tales.

I for one dont care what he does, if he wants to go hunt, fine, go out and do it. Isnt like he went out with the INTENTION of doing wrong, he had a show to put on.....

I only hope I can do it like he does when I get that old

JIM K · Post by **JIM K** » Tue May 01, 2012 4:30 pm

ultracarry wrote:
JIM K wrote:the arresting officer in alaska is REPUBLICAN too. i guess he is LEFTY out to get NUGENT again.

Sounds like the officer is actually doing his job without being biased and enforcing the laws regardless. It's almost like he took an oath... Naaa couldn't be.

He is Ted nugent the king of the NRA, he should be allowed to do what ever he wants because the laws don't meet what Ted believes. Ted wants to shoot everything in sight, bait deer (even when not legal), and sell TV add space. The heck with those that are true sportsmen and want to project hunting fishing and the use of firearms in a good light. Darn those who want all laws enforced no matter who the person breaking them happens to be.

I'm a republican, life member of the NRA, I go to banquets, raffles, donate money, and don't think teddy deserves to be hunting. He seems like a serial violator and needs the weapons confiscated that he committed the crimes with, vehicle should also be taken, privlidges to hunt all public land revoked for 5 years minimum in all states. Ohh btw he is a Law Enforcement Officer so he is supposed to be held to a higher standard (unless they already took his badge away).

well said.he was worried this TIME that he was going to be charged with FELONY.NEW LAW in pa he would have been charged with FELONY.guess who pushed for this new law,US SPORTSMAN .

no excuse for not knowing laws

JIM K · Post by **JIM K** » Tue May 01, 2012 7:01 pm

ckirsch wrote:Ultra;

I applaud you for you membership in the NRA, and for your involvement in the struggle to preserve Second Amendment rights. You seem, however, to be pretty quick to judge Nugent. If he's truly overstepped the law, then he obviously deserves the same consequences any of us would receive. It does appear that in some cases (the Alaskan bear case, in particular) he's being held to a much higher standard than most would be. It would seem a bit naive to completely discount any political motivations for his prosecution, given that his strong positions on a controversial issue are at odds with many in the government. The guy puts a significant amount of energy into Wounded Warriors and other pro-military programs, along with the Make-A-Wish hunts for terminally ill kids and other charitable causes. He's clearly no saint, but he can't be all bad.

JimK;

We get it. You have a thing for Nugent. You're on two FORUMS now, with a CAMPAIGN of oddly-Worded RANTS against HIM using strangely RANDOM capitalizatioN. We also understand that you don't care for "Sanitorium". Given your proclivity to condemn Nugent and his work with the NRA, I'm curious as to what your personal resume might read in regards to efforts to protect the Second Amendment. If you're in the trenches fighting to save our right to bear arms, you're in a position to criticize him. If that's not the case, well........

you are right. I DONT LIKE HIM ONE BIT.ANYONE THAT POOED HIS PANTS TO AVOID DRAFT IN VIETNAM SOUNDS LIKE CHICKEN HAWK TO ME. :roll: