Nebraska Man Pleads Guilty to Poaching

[Elmacho]

Maybe consider the fine to be 10 months salary/wage......just like when lawsuit judgements against corporations are made to "send a message," they make huge judgements in the hundreds of millions just to make sure the company "feels it"

$21K might only be a weeks pay for this guy, or it may be a year's worth....

If I made $250k a year, I'd about laugh at $21k fine

my 2 pesos

 

[TheTone]

For those saying you feel most punishments are too light go try and have a chat with your local prosecutor or judge and explain why these things matter and that people care. Often times you will find they just don’t understand or really care about wildlife laws or crime. The other thing is often times the court system is horribly bogged down and fish and game cases are an easy place to make a deal and get things resolved quickly without a huge fight or amount of time spent.

 

[idahofishnhunt]

If it was a dog or cat he'd have life in prison I'm sure.

 

[WyoDoug]

One thing to add to the comment made about the workload and not understanding wildlife laws and needs, each prosecution costs $$$$$$. A capital case can easily cost the state millions of dollars to prosecute. A typical felony case costs at least $50K to prosecute by time you pay for the investigations, including public defenders and their investigators. What can make it more effective is if the states were to pass laws requiring anyone convicted to pay for costs of prosecuting the case completely. The other problem we have and I see that with the Laramie County DA is they only have so many attorneys available to do the prosecution and severely overwhelmed in caseload. Until the legislature addresses that issue, wildlife cases will continue taking the back burner.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Poachers are gonna poach.

Could go a little Hammurabi and take the index finger on their shoot'n hand.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

My feeling is hunting and fishing should be prohibited for life. They should be fined at least $25K for each big game animal and serve ten years in prison. Until our prosecutors and judges take poaching seriously, you are going to have problems with not just new offenders, but also with repeat offenders who take the slap on wrist fines as cost of doing business. It also makes the job of the game warden even tougher.

I'll say it... Holy Shit man!

I'm not saying poaching is by any means good, but let's take an honest look at what you're proposing here.

Ten years in prison for shoot an animal without a license. That's down right absurd. Your fine and time behind bars is equal to manslaughter 2 in South Dakota. I'm sorry but that is in no way reasonable and I'll take an even stronger stance: anyone who believes that poaching is equal to manslaughter is off their rocker.

Additionally, life without hunting and fishing: if you made mistake as a 18 year old man, shoot a deer in the county over from where you had your tag valid for, is it fair that you could never hunt or fish for the rest of your life? Let's be realistic here, life is too long to take away someones ability to hunt and fish. Now longer time frames like 5-10 years, ya I could see that no problem, but life is outrageous.


I get it man, we all hate poaching, it disgusts me as well. But those punishments are cruel and unusual for the crime. Ya know, the whole Constitution thing....

This case in particular should be audited by an independent third party to verify that the law was complied with both at the prosecution eval and at the judicial level.

This would break down our judicial system. Who is the third party that is going to be reviewing this? The Supreme Court? Who decides what cases should be reviewed? Why wouldn't ever single case be reviewed? While we're at it, why even have an initial case when it is going to be reviewed by an "independent third party"? Why not have them over see the case from the get go? Ya know, like how a judge does currently..... Oh wait that is what judges do.... an independent third party to make sure the rules are followed by all parties...



I'm sorry Wyodoug, I'm going to come off rude, but your ideas are pretty out there in left field. Don't take it personally man, I'm just pointing out flaws.

One thing to add to the comment made about the workload and not understanding wildlife laws and needs, each prosecution costs $$$$$$. A capital case can easily cost the state millions of dollars to prosecute. A typical felony case costs at least $50K to prosecute by time you pay for the investigations, including public defenders and their investigators. What can make it more effective is if the states were to pass laws requiring anyone convicted to pay for costs of prosecuting the case completely. The other problem we have and I see that with the Laramie County DA is they only have so many attorneys available to do the prosecution and severely overwhelmed in caseload. Until the legislature addresses that issue, wildlife cases will continue taking the back burner.

Might as well keep it going so I'm sure I'll really start a cat fight here.....

So many things wrong with statement, so I'll just hit a few.

If a department's money was to come from successfully gaining convictions, I would have to imagine that they would abuse that power to no end. They could throw every resource available to overwhelm a public defender and convict innocent citizens of who knows what crimes. Why not try when it means your budget is going to grow?


Think cases are expensive now for the tax payers now? Imagine if there was a chance it would all be covered by the defendant? Then what would stop someone from running up the tab to $200k trying to get a conviction? Probably nothing. Then what happens when the case comes back not guilty? Now tax payers are on the hook for $200k instead of $50k. See the issue here?


I'm going to end with a pretty broad stroke here. Think our justice system is overworked already? Now let's drown more people in debt by slapping them with a $20k/animal fine, and now another $50k in costs back to the state, along with their own legal fees. One thing is certain, in most cases poverty causes more crime. So after the jail holds and pays for 10 years worth of confinement, we now have someone so in debt to the state that they will probably commit more crimes to pay off their debts. Do you see how this could cause an endless cycle that will lead to even more issues?




I'm sure you're going to take this personally, so I implore you to try not to. Some times I like to argue just to argue and have some fun....


Also, don't think I'm pro poaching by any means either. I'm not, but I think there's a right way and a wrong way to fix a problem.

 

[beginnerhunter]

I'll say it... Holy Shit man!

I'm not saying poaching is by any means good, but let's take an honest look at what you're proposing here.

Ten years in prison for shoot an animal without a license. That's down right absurd. Your fine and time behind bars is equal to manslaughter 2 in South Dakota. I'm sorry but that is in no way reasonable and I'll take an even stronger stance: anyone who believes that poaching is equal to manslaughter is off their rocker.

Additionally, life without hunting and fishing: if you made mistake as a 18 year old man, shoot a deer in the county over from where you had your tag valid for, is it fair that you could never hunt or fish for the rest of your life? Let's be realistic here, life is too long to take away someones ability to hunt and fish. Now longer time frames like 5-10 years, ya I could see that no problem, but life is outrageous.


I get it man, we all hate poaching, it disgusts me as well. But those punishments are cruel and unusual for the crime. Ya know, the whole Constitution thing....




This would break down our judicial system. Who is the third party that is going to be reviewing this? The Supreme Court? Who decides what cases should be reviewed? Why wouldn't ever single case be reviewed? While we're at it, why even have an initial case when it is going to be reviewed by an "independent third party"? Why not have them over see the case from the get go? Ya know, like how a judge does currently..... Oh wait that is what judges do.... an independent third party to make sure the rules are followed by all parties...



I'm sorry Wyodoug, I'm going to come off rude, but your ideas are pretty out there in left field. Don't take it personally man, I'm just pointing out flaws.




Might as well keep it going so I'm sure I'll really start a cat fight here.....

So many things wrong with statement, so I'll just hit a few.

If a department's money was to come from successfully gaining convictions, I would have to imagine that they would abuse that power to no end. They could throw every resource available to overwhelm a public defender and convict innocent citizens of who knows what crimes. Why not try when it means your budget is going to grow?


Think cases are expensive now for the tax payers now? Imagine if there was a chance it would all be covered by the defendant? Then what would stop someone from running up the tab to $200k trying to get a conviction? Probably nothing. Then what happens when the case comes back not guilty? Now tax payers are on the hook for $200k instead of $50k. See the issue here?


I'm going to end with a pretty broad stroke here. Think our justice system is overworked already? Now let's drown more people in debt by slapping them with a $20k/animal fine, and now another $50k in costs back to the state, along with their own legal fees. One thing is certain, in most cases poverty causes more crime. So after the jail holds and pays for 10 years worth of confinement, we now have someone so in debt to the state that they will probably commit more crimes to pay off their debts. Do you see how this could cause an endless cycle that will lead to even more issues?




I'm sure you're going to take this personally, so I implore you to try not to. Some times I like to argue just to argue and have some fun....


Also, don't think I'm pro poaching by any means either. I'm not, but I think there's a right way and a wrong way to fix a problem.

I'll agree the punishment should come down to severity and intent. But I think the reaction you see in this thread has more to do with the lax penalties, in general, when it comes to poaching cases.

After numerous instances of being caught intentionally poaching, I dont think light jail time or lifetime bans should be out of the question. Large fines are great but only if the person has the money to pay it. And only if it hurts enough ($1000 may be impossible for some people, and $25k may be nothing to another person).

Maybe states should come up with system for mandatory penalties/fines. Idk the answer.

 

[wyoboypt]

2 years for 3 elk!? In Wyoming they take 2 years of privileges for picking up a dang horn! Equally ridiculous in the opposite extreme.