MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Another Hunting Hero has been canceled

On the topic of the thread- I’m glad he got caught and hope this stops him or at least slows him down, BUT one thing that really rubs me the wrong way is that in most of these poaching stories I see what I call “charge stacking”. Someone poaches an animal and then gets charged with taking an animal out of season, taking it with an illegal means, trespassing, taking it without a license, failure to properly tag, shooting from a right of way, shooting at night, using a spotlight, shooting from a vehicle waste of game etc. I get it, we don’t think any of those carries enough of a sentence on his own so we charge him with everything, BUT why do we have to charge him with 56 charges for one single act? I’m 100% in additional charge for each animal. Poach ten animals, get charged with ten counts of poaching. If the penalty isn’t enough don’t we need to just raise the penalty?
 
ImBillT said:
On the topic of the thread- I’m glad he got caught and hope this stops him or at least slows him down, BUT one thing that really rubs me the wrong way is that in most of these poaching stories I see what I call “charge stacking”. Someone poaches an animal and then gets charged with taking an animal out of season, taking it with an illegal means, trespassing, taking it without a license, failure to properly tag, shooting from a right of way, shooting at night, using a spotlight, shooting from a vehicle waste of game etc. I get it, we don’t think any of those carries enough of a sentence on his own so we charge him with everything, BUT why do we have to charge him with 56 charges for one single act? I’m 100% in additional charge for each animal. Poach ten animals, get charged with ten counts of poaching. If the penalty isn’t enough don’t we need to just raise the penalty?
Click to expand...
I believe a lot of changes get "stacked" to give the prosecution options in a trial and leverage in a plea deal.
 
ImBillT said:
On the topic of the thread- I’m glad he got caught and hope this stops him or at least slows him down, BUT one thing that really rubs me the wrong way is that in most of these poaching stories I see what I call “charge stacking”. Someone poaches an animal and then gets charged with taking an animal out of season, taking it with an illegal means, trespassing, taking it without a license, failure to properly tag, shooting from a right of way, shooting at night, using a spotlight, shooting from a vehicle waste of game etc. I get it, we don’t think any of those carries enough of a sentence on his own so we charge him with everything, BUT why do we have to charge him with 56 charges for one single act? I’m 100% in additional charge for each animal. Poach ten animals, get charged with ten counts of poaching. If the penalty isn’t enough don’t we need to just raise the penalty?
Click to expand...
Idaho had a legislative bill to raise violations a few years ago; it died because a legislator was facing current charges. There were also legislators testifying against it because it would mean their constituents wouldn’t be able to afford to poach anymore

The truth is lots of judges, prosecutors and juries don’t take wildlife crime very seriously. In big counties the cases are easy to put on the back burner or just get rid of because they’re overworked; in small counties you often see violators given the local discount or not having the resources to effectively prosecute
 
ImBillT said:
On the topic of the thread- I’m glad he got caught and hope this stops him or at least slows him down, BUT one thing that really rubs me the wrong way is that in most of these poaching stories I see what I call “charge stacking”. Someone poaches an animal and then gets charged with taking an animal out of season, taking it with an illegal means, trespassing, taking it without a license, failure to properly tag, shooting from a right of way, shooting at night, using a spotlight, shooting from a vehicle waste of game etc. I get it, we don’t think any of those carries enough of a sentence on his own so we charge him with everything, BUT why do we have to charge him with 56 charges for one single act? I’m 100% in additional charge for each animal. Poach ten animals, get charged with ten counts of poaching. If the penalty isn’t enough don’t we need to just raise the penalty?
Click to expand...
Well, if those laws are on the books (right or wrong; if you don't like them vote the bastards out of office who support them) and the person actually committed those crimes, then why wouldn't they be charged with them? Let the court decide to drop them, not the LEO who wrote them.
 
wllm1313 said:
If the shoe cousin fits...
Click to expand...
FIFY

ImBillT said:
On the topic of the thread- I’m glad he got caught and hope this stops him or at least slows him down, BUT one thing that really rubs me the wrong way is that in most of these poaching stories I see what I call “charge stacking”. Someone poaches an animal and then gets charged with taking an animal out of season, taking it with an illegal means, trespassing, taking it without a license, failure to properly tag, shooting from a right of way, shooting at night, using a spotlight, shooting from a vehicle waste of game etc. I get it, we don’t think any of those carries enough of a sentence on his own so we charge him with everything, BUT why do we have to charge him with 56 charges for one single act? I’m 100% in additional charge for each animal. Poach ten animals, get charged with ten counts of poaching. If the penalty isn’t enough don’t we need to just raise the penalty?
Click to expand...

If he broke all of those other laws in the commission of the poaching, then he should be charged for each crime he committed.

One of the issues we've seen isn't so much that fines need to be higher but that JP's & Judges need to be stiffer in their sentencing. Tobster here got almost $10K in fines & 4.5 years suspension. For a guy who purportedly makes his living in outdoor media, that's a pretty stiff sentence to come back from, especially since I'm sure his sponsors have heard about this by now.

So if the Jurists would sentence more than the minimum, then there's likely something there. I've also heard from friends who wear black robes in a professional setting (and elsewhere, but they're not all preachy about it) that the hunting privilege's removal is far more of a disincentive than the monetary fine.
 
A207X2 said:
Well, if those laws are on the books (right or wrong; if you don't like them vote the bastards out of office who support them) and the person actually committed those crimes, then why wouldn't they be charged with them? Let the court decide to drop them, not the LEO who wrote them.
Click to expand...
The smaller charges like improper tagging exist to handle people whose only offense was improper tagging. When they guy doesn’t even have a license or tag, that’s a bigger offense, just nail him for that. I think that most of the time it would be more correct to just hit the offender with primary offense and leave the rest alone. You can’t properly tag if you don’t even have a tag. In my mind, that’s one big offense, not a big and a little one.
 
Ben Lamb said:
FIFY



If he broke all of those other laws in the commission of the poaching, then he should be charged for each crime he committed.

One of the issues we've seen isn't so much that fines need to be higher but that JP's & Judges need to be stiffer in their sentencing. Tobster here got almost $10K in fines & 4.5 years suspension. For a guy who purportedly makes his living in outdoor media, that's a pretty stiff sentence to come back from, especially since I'm sure his sponsors have heard about this by now.

So if the Jurists would sentence more than the minimum, then there's likely something there. I've also heard from friends who wear black robes in a professional setting (and elsewhere, but they're not all preachy about it) that the hunting privilege's removal is far more of a disincentive than the monetary fine.
Click to expand...
I think the hunting privilege removal is only a disincentive to hunters who are honest 99% of the time and gave in to temptation once. Most poachers are serial poachers who never followed game laws to begin with, and being unable to purchase a license is not an impediment.
 
ImBillT said:
The smaller charges like improper tagging exist to handle people whose only offense was improper tagging. When they guy doesn’t even have a license or tag, that’s a bigger offense, just nail him for that. I think that most of the time it would be more correct to just hit the offender with primary offense and leave the rest alone. You can’t properly tag if you don’t even have a tag. In my mind, that’s one big offense, not a big and a little one.
Click to expand...
I don't know the guy in question, but it appears he was a flagrant offender. What does it take to "throw the book" at someone if not a scofflaw ?
 
ImBillT said:
I think the hunting privilege removal is only a disincentive to hunters who are honest 99% of the time and gave in to temptation once. Most poachers are serial poachers who never followed game laws to begin with, and being unable to purchase a license is not an impediment.
Click to expand...

There's likely a big statistical difference between the serial poacher like Tobias and the average infraction guy who got busted from something small and is mostly above board. Like the Governor of MT, who keeps getting popped for singular infractions due to ignorance, and not malfeasance.
 
They catch such a small percentage of intentional violators that I am glad they stack them. I have never known someone who got charges stacked on them that didn't damn well deserve it.
 
For every porn star there is a few uncomfortable cousins. :)
Charles and Emma Darwin were a real life experiment on incest and genetic bottlenecks.
I recommend researching

phys.org

Study: Darwin was right to worry that marriage to his cousin affected his offspring

New research suggests that Charles Darwin's family was a living human example of a theory that he developed about plants: that inbreeding could negatively affect the health and number of resulting offspring.
phys.org phys.org
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nameless Range
Heads on Pikes
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Tradewind
Tradewind
W
ID Poaching Case
Replies
0
Views
2K
westbranch
W
mtmiller
More poaching
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
Sytes
Sytes
Fsmith
Crow treaty rights, thoughts?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
9K
ismith
ismith
K
Major MT wildlife investigation
Replies
9
Views
3K
katqanna
K

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,050
Messages
2,042,362
Members
36,442
Latest member
Grendelhunter98

Share this page

Back
Top