Some good commercialization?

[Tom]

What do you think? Make the fine depend on size, sounds good to me. It took more years and public resources to make that size. see cut and paste below.

A bill being sponsored by Missouri Republican Rep. Roy Holand, would increase poaching fines for anyone found guilty of illegally killing an antlered deer to include a payment to the Missouri Conservation Commission ranging from $1,500 to $7,500 per violation.

Under the terms of the bill, a guilty conviction would carry the current penalties for committing a Class A misdemeanor in violation of the state's wildlife codes plus require the defendant to pay the state for the value of the animal.

The worth of the animal would be calculated by using the certified Boone and Crockett Club scoring system.

If the bill passes both houses of the legislature and is signed into law by the governor, an individual convicted of illegally killing an antlered white-tailed deer in Missouri would be required to pay for the cost of the animal as follows:


B&C score of 100-125 points: $1,500

B&C score of 125-150 points: $3,000

B&C score of 150-175 points: $5,000

B&C score of 175 or more points: $7,500
The money raised by the fines would go to the Missouri Conservation Commission and be used for a grant program to promote anti-poaching regulations.

For more information, visit www.house.state.mo.us/bills03/bills/hb226.htm.

 

[Washington Hunter]

What about does? Aren't they worth anything?

 

[Tom]

"In addition to the penalties provided in section 252.040, any person convicted of taking, killing, possessing or disposing of a deer in violation of methods, seasons and limits as defined and permitted by commission rules and regulations, shall be required to provide restitution to the state in an amount as follows:"

so, whatever Missouri 252.040 says for a doe poacher or buck less than 100 B&C.

 

[1_pointer]

I think Kansas already employs this type of system. I sort of disagree. I think the fines should be over $5K for any poached big game animal and loss of hunting privledges for at least 5yrs if not indefinitely. The only reason I'd be cautious about indefinitely is if someone makes an 'honest mistake' and reports the problem quickly and personally.

 

[Oak]

If they think any of their deer are worth $7500, then the fine for poaching ANY deer should be $7500. They're just putting a price on the size of the antlers, which is equivilent to what game farms do. It all has to do with putting a monetary value on the size of a set of antlers: commercialism of wildlife...ie., bad.

JMHO

Oak

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with Oak its a bad idea.

I'd say a person would pay 3-5K for a 150+ Whitetail Buck on a good guided hunt....the crime is just about worth the risk of being caught, monitarily at least.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I agree with Oak also. That's kind of the point I was trying to make when I asked what a doe is worth. It's almost like they're saying it's ok to kill a doe for the meat, but don't kill any trophy bucks, because they have value. My state has the same type of thing...for poaching a "trophy deer" (defined as having 4 points or more) or a "trophy elk" (5 points or more) is an additional $6000 fine over the standard penalties.

 

[Tom]

Buzz, how much for a doe on a good guided whitetail hunt? They are less, if a guy poached one of them to feed his family, I'm not going to object to a smaller fine with less penalty for that. I got some does last year for $85 on a guided hunt. You guys are kind of out there, worried about ghost to me, when you bring up this commerciallization stuff. Its not the big evil its made out to be, at least I don't see it.

Animals cost money to raise, so they should cost money to shoot, that's real to me, that's why I think commercialization isn't bad, we have to have the money to raise them well.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-07-2003 14:26: Message edited by: Tom ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Tom, what do you suppose license fees are for?

Oh, and the fine should be the same, no matter if its a doe or a buck.

I also dont buy into the theory of "some guy needing the meat, so he poached". I dont give a shit, its unacceptable, poaching is poaching. Who needs to poach deer for meat anymore? I mean Christ all mighty, resident tags are DIRT cheap, gather meat legally or pay the piper.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-07-2003 14:42: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Tom]

That's the problem, Buzz, a dirt cheap resident liscense is a ripoff and is nowhere near the cost of the animal. Especially if the state gets more money from non-residents with way less of them hunting.

I don't know the best formula for preventing poaching, I'm just talking about it because its a way to look at commercialization coming from a different angle. I agree, they should pay more for poaching than you would pay for a good hunt, otherwise crime pays, like you say, at least from an economical point of dollars only.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Tom, just wondering...why is a "dirt cheap resident license" a rip off? A rip off for who?

 

[Tom]

WH, its not a price ripoff for the instate hunters, its a wildlife ripoff, because it costs a lot more than the cost to take care of the animals. The states charge other people, its a rippoff for those people. That was my thought.

Like over 1 million hunters from New York give a lot of money to Pittman-Robertson funds. Some western state with 1/5 the hunters gives way less to the Pittman-Robertson funds and gets a bunch of it. Some states wildlife budget comes more from out of state than from instate. They get more Pittman-Robertson funds from others, they get more tag fees from others. Its pretty much a rip off. I read an article Iowa could have raised their resident deer tag this year from something like $35 to $38 instead of doubling the nonresident tag which is way more and they would have raised more money for their own deer. Its not right to me, that kind of stuff. I understand how it happens, non Iowa people don't vote in Iowa. Pittman-Robertson funds are limited to 5% per state max, even though New York, Mich., and Penn. for example have way more hunters than some western states.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I agree with that Tom, at least in some cases. I think in some states residents could pay just a little more, and I bet most of them wouldn't mind either. Especially Montana, if they can charge $1100 for a non-resident elk tag, I think residents should be paying more than $16.

 

[BuzzH]

I'll agree that residents pay very little for tags.

However, I dont believe that NR's pay too much. Nobody is getting ripped off. Plus, I view NR license fees as a contribution to wildlife management each year. Whats a few hundred bucks for the chance to kill an elk, deer, bear, caribou, moose, goat, sheep, pronghorn, etc.?

For the most part NR fees are a freaking bargin if you ask me.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Mostly what I disagree with when it comes to prices of licenses and tags, is the guaranteed outfitter tags, like the deer/elk license in Montana for around $1100. Actually I guess it's not so much the high price I disagree with, it's the fact that they offer guaranteed licenses at all, when everybody else has to draw a license. I know Oregon does this too, and Nevada. Non-residents in Oregon are limited to only 5% of the deer and elk tags available, and then half of that 5% is given to outfitters for their clients. I just think everybody should be given an equal chance at tags, no matter how much money they have (or want) to spend.

 

[BuzzH]

WH, I agree 100 percent, just another freebie given to outfitters, just about as bad as welfare ranchers.

 

[Tom]

It sounds a bit different to me, in Texas everybody is guaranteed tags, in state and out of state, there's no one excluded.