Less Access = Less People = Less Probability of getting Caught

[Nemont]

Well you cousin would know that there aren't any paved roads into or out or even near Whitewater. . Nice try though. Besides that looks nothing like my POS 2 wheel drive, Maroon and Silver 1991 chevy PU.

Nemont

 

[The Hedgehog]

Well, the locals in the Froid area don't even let them get into the air. It's where the term "Ground-Pound" originated.

 

[Nemont]

Must be hunters from Missoula or Kalispell. There is only one of them shooting and there aren't any beer cans falling out of the rig.

Nemont

 

[Ten Bears]

For those to THICK with ATVophobia to comprehend, the topic is and has been: "Less Access = Less People = Less Probability of getting Caught".

It never has been: "Less Access = Less People = More Poaching. No one, other then the self righteous ATVophobes have read it any other way.

How many people here have stated that poaching is lower near roads, or that it doesn't exist near roads? How many have stated that it doesn't exist in wilderness or backcountry areas (Statements along the line of: people that hunt like that wouldn't do that)?

NEMONT, I can post numerous "cases" of backcountry or wilderness poaching. The reason there aren't the number of studies is that isn't on the it isn't on the agency agendas, not that it doesn't happen. I would post a lot more cases, but somebody said that wasn't right. Do you want to see them, or do you want to keep with the topic?

It's called comprehension YRH/IT/MATT/BUZZ.... Practice it. Your prejudices are overflowing.

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

Ten Beers,

I asked you to provide the numbers that you calculated that included the probablilty of getting caught with or without roads. Thanks in advance for the information....

Greenhorn,
I assure you Nemont doesn't have that nice of a road hunting rig..... And besides, you ever stuck a smelly Antelope inside a Suburban??? It makes the drive home miserable....

 

[MattK]

Greenhorn-

"A road hunter takes aim at pheasant fleeing a dried up wetland on private property south of Presho on Highway 183. The hunter shot several pheasant along the road where no hunting signs were posted"

This is the caption under the picture, I never got to read the article though.

 

[mtmiller]

Actually, I grew up hunting pheasants around Presho. I believe the only thing unlawful about this situation is the door is not closed on the vehicle. Way different laws in MT than SD. We did a majority of our hunting by walking ditches. I don't remember walking the highway ditches, but I think it is legal.

see page 26 of handbook

http://www.sdgfp.info/Publications/HuntingHandbook.pdf

 

[Nemont]

Ten Bears,

Then what exactly is your issue? If it is proven that there is MORE poaching near roads and that it is done because it is far easier to access then doesn't that mean that the places to put MORE LEO is near the roads.

Your little equation: Less Access = Less People = Less Probability of getting Caught, doesn't make any sense then.
If the F&G dept's. already know that more poaching goes on along roads then that is where they have to focus their limited resources. I can find numerous article about poaching happening in the backcountry but I can't find one that blames lack of access or limited number of people for the problem of poaching. Nearly everything out there says the same thing: more access=more poaching, period. So would you rather have the F&G ignore the obvious place where people poach ie along roads or try to patrol the backcountry for a much smaller problem.

Less Access = Less People = Less Probability of getting Caught; again if that is what you believe then you have a huge fundemental flaw in your logic.

It should be: Less access=less poaching=less poaching=less chance of being caught poaching=more time LEO' should patrol the roaded areas for poachers.

 

[The Hedgehog]

"Wait.. let me close my door: .. blam, blam, blam...... blam."

Notice that it's illegal to plow coyotes on a snowmobiles.

Illegal to carry a firearms on an ATV that are not unloaded and in an enclosed case.

 

[MattK]

mtmiller- Here's the article that relates to the picture...

Ruling limits road hunting

BY BEN SHOUSE
[email protected]

published: 12/13/2004

No shooting pheasants over private land, judge says

A circuit judge Dec. 1 struck down a 2003 law that expanded road hunting. The ruling will prohibit shooting pheasants from public roads if they fly over private property, a common hunting method in South Dakota.

The action cuts off another opportunity for free hunting in an era when many hunters say opportunities are disappearing quickly.

“I don’t think there is going to be much of a future of road hunting,” Chris Hesla, director of the South Dakota Wildlife Federation, said from Fort Pierre.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs called the judge’s ruling a victory for landowners.

“She hit it right on the head, that this new road hunting statute basically amounted to a taking sanctioned by the government, that landowners had nothing they could do to prevent hunters shooting onto their property,” said Chris Dohrer of Aberdeen.

Attorney General Larry Long was traveling and could not be reached. But Dohrer said he anticipated the state would appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

Gov. Mike Rounds’ press secretary, Mark Johnston, said state officials will review Kathleen Trandahl’s decision in the next few days, but no official decision had been made Wednesday on whether to appeal.

Hunter Randy Joneson of Sioux Falls said the ruling would affect him directly.

“For me, you’re going to eliminate any hunting except on public land. It would just be over,” he said. Because of the lack of free hunting, he is not sure how long he will stick with the sport.

“My dog is 8 years old, and I’m going to take her out, and I’m going to hunt her until she’s done, and then I don’t think I’m going to get another dog,” he said. “It’s not worth it to me ... it’s not even fair to the dog.”

Hunting on private land requires an owner’s permission. For decades, since South Dakota pheasant hunting began in 1919, most hunters got permission to hunt free. But it has become more and more common for landowners to charge.

Commercial operations

That includes the plaintiffs in the case, Robert and Judith Benson of Winner and Jeff and Tricia Messmer of Wessington Springs, who run commercial hunting operations on their farms.

That has driven many hunters to road hunting, which is legal when pheasants are in the 66-foot-wide band that runs along public roads.

Until 2002, the state Game, Fish and Parks Department considered it illegal to shoot at a game bird as it flew from the right-of-way over private land. But some road hunters didn’t follow that interpretation exactly.

In 2002, the South Dakota Supreme Court defined limits on road hunting, ruling that existing law prevents road hunters from shooting birds that fly above private land.

Last year, the state Legislature tried to widen the band of easement by allowing hunters to shoot birds that flew from right-of-way over private land, and to retrieve the birds they shot.

Some hunters say profit was the main motivation for the suit against that law. But not all landowners who opposed the law did so for money.

“(The law) goes too far. It allows people to shoot out over your land. It’s a little more than a road hunting issue,” said White Lake farmer Jim Headley.

Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl of Winner wrote in her decision that the law was a “taking” of property, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment and the South Dakota Constitution.

“The Legislature went too far when it granted hunters the right to shoot onto private land. This is the very kind of thing that the taking clause was meant to prevent. The taking clause stands as a shield against the arbitrary use of governmental power,” she wrote.

Trandahl cited a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court case, in which Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that a taking exists “without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner.”

She looked back at a 1922 case in which an island resort owner sued the U.S. government for firing harbor defense guns across its oceanfront, scaring the guests, and to a 1946 decision that said, “The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.”

Opportunities lost

Regardless of the strength of that case law, hunters say the ruling is unfortunate because it further erodes the state’s tradition of affordable pheasant hunting.

Hesla of the wildlife federation said: “In South Dakota, we’re kind of at a crossroads here where we’re going to have to decide how free and public hunting and private hunting are going to coexist. Because right now, the public is by far getting the short end of the stick.”

The 2003 law says the provision allowing road hunters to shoot birds that fly over private property will automatically be repealed if the state Supreme Court ever decides that landowners should be paid for loss of property rights.

Mike Held, administrative director of the South Dakota Farm Bureau, said the organization has always considered the 2003 law to be unconstitutional.

“That’s encouraging,” Held said of the circuit judge’s decision.

Reach Ben Shouse at 605-331-2318. The Associated Press contributed to this story.

ISSUE AT A GLANCE

* For years, it was considered illegal to shoot at a game bird as it flew over private land, although some road hunters did that. In 2002, the state Supreme Court ruled against shooting birds over private land. A year later, the state Legislature passed a law allowing the practice and retrieval of the birds. But a circuit judge struck down the law Dec. 1.

 

[Ten Bears]

Ten Bears,

Then what exactly is your issue? If it is proven that there is MORE poaching near roads and that it is done because it is far easier to access then doesn't that mean that the places to put MORE LEO is near the roads. Nothing has proven that there is MORE poaching near roads. The only thing proven so far is that poaching near roads is more studied. Yet, again that isn't the topic either.

Your little equation: Less Access = Less People = Less Probability of getting Caught, doesn't make any sense then. Are you then jumping on the "there is no poaching in the backcountry/wilderness bandwagon also?"
If the F&G dept's. already know that more poaching goes on along roads then that is where they have to focus their limited resources. I can find numerous article about poaching happening in the backcountry but I can't find one that blames lack of access or limited number of people for the problem of poaching. What of the article I posted with the quote from the MT inforcement guy? Did you just overlook it entirely? Nearly everything out there says the same thing: more access=more poaching, period. There again, that is what has been on the agenda for study. So would you rather have the F&G ignore the obvious place where people poach ie along roads or try to patrol the backcountry for a much smaller problem. Along the same line of thought, would you have them not focus on areas of known poaching, but to focus on the roadside issue instead?

Less Access = Less People = Less Probability of getting Caught; again if that is what you believe then you have a huge fundemental flaw in your logic.
Again, please show how it is flawed.
It should be: Less access=less poaching=less poaching=less chance of being caught poaching=more time LEO' should patrol the roaded areas for poachers. You have yet to show that less access=less poaching, nor have you shown that LEO's should patrol roaded areas for poachers more then they should patrol backcountry areas.

NEMONT, the only thing flawed here is your understanding of the topic.

YRH, please show your numbers to prove otherwise, if that is the case you want to debate. Please keep on topic, otherwise close your jap, your lack of intellect is showing.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Ten Bears, you should open the garage door when working on the ATV. The symptoms of carbon monoxide poinsoning may not be as obvious to some of the people around you.

 

[Nemont]

Ten Bears,

I can't figure out where you are getting your logic but you truly have my SYMPATHY
You are either imbibing to much thunderbird or inhaling a few too many fumes.

Nothing has proven that there is MORE poaching near roads. The only thing proven so far is that poaching near roads is more studied. Yet, again that isn't the topic either.

So all those studies that show that poaching increase with road density are just a bunch of evil propaganda by the anti road people? How much more proof do you want?

I asked what exactly is your point. You have yet to make a coherent point so I am waiting.

I have never said there isn't poaching in the back country. So that is out as an excuse for your idiotic response to my post. Must be the TBird.

Less Access = Less People = Less Probability of getting caughtAgain, please show how it is flawed.

You show me any thinking person who believe the problems with enforcement of anti poaching laws wouldn't be 1,000% easier enforce if there was less access and lower road density. Did you ever read anything I posted? I have searched alot for anything that could remotely support your conculsion and have yet to find a single credible source that came to the same conculsion.

NEWSFLASH. Less access=Less people=less poaching=good for wildlife.

|oo |oo |oo

Post something from an credible source who believes limiting access gives poachers free reign and a blurb from the BRC won't suffice.

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Ten Bears- Everything has stated there is more poaching near areas where there is more access and more people. Nothing has come close to stating less access=more poaching. NOTHING!!!

Your logic astounds me.

The real formula may be less access=less people=less poaching.

I can honestly say without a doubt in your formula Less truly is More~~!!!

 

[Michaelr]

It is a no brainer that more poaching is done from roads. Probably alot of times on the spur of the moment, Alot of guys just can't let a half decent set of antlers get away.

less access, less people, less chance of being caught is also true. Thats just common sense. Doesn't for one second mean that more poaching happens in remote areas though.
Most poaching is right on the side of the road where Bubba can hurry and throw the fork horn in the back of the old chevy and cover it with a bail of straw.

 

[BuzzH]

Ten beers continues to amaze the masses with his brilliance...

Ten beers is right everyone else is wrong.

I'm convinced that there will be no grade school graduation party for ten beers.

 

[Ten Bears]

Anybody else feel that breeze? BUZZ must be flappin' his gums uselessly.

 

[Ten Bears]

Ten beers continues to amaze the masses with his brilliance...

Ten beers is right everyone else is wrong.

I'm convinced that there will be no grade school graduation party for ten beers.

BUZZ, is that the most intellegent thing you could post? Maybe you should just answer the question I asked you.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Road Hunting Pictures

YourRoyalHeiny... I can't believe you'd be afraid to stuff a lope in the back of a Suburban. I bought the old hatchback for $250 and I was the only one at the trailhead that day without a horse trailer. When they are roaded up ...take advantage of it.

 

[cjcj]

Takem how you have to...Thats funny.....My truck tranny went out one year and i had to cut up a cow elk and put it into my wifes honda civic... legs sticking out the window etc.