Replacement Value est. in Ohio

[Multidigits]

POACHING IN OHIO WILL LEAD TO STIFFER PENALTIES

New system calculates values that incorporate population status, aesthetics and other factors

COLUMBUS, OH - Legislation raising the restitution value of wildlife taken illegally took effect today, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife.

"The new standard reflects the present-day value of Ohio's wildlife," said Jim Lehman, law enforcement administrator for the Division of Wildlife. "The monetary value of most of our wildlife can range anywhere from $20 to nearly $2,500, depending on criteria and weighting factors. Trophy deer are an exception; their value can range much higher."

The new restitution schedule stems from legislation (HB238) passed by the Ohio General Assembly last year. House Bill 238 revised provisions governing the restitution value of wild animals that are unlawfully held, taken, bought, sold or possessed. It is the first revision since 1994 and establishes a formula that reflects the current status and scarcity of various species.

Seven categories of value make up the new scoring criteria: recreational, aesthetic, educational, state-list designation, economics, recruitment, and population dynamics. The new restitution values of wild animals taken illegally will result from the total score for each of the seven criteria. The criteria total is then multiplied by the weighting factor of species population status. An animal that is considered abundant has a lower weighting factor than does an endangered species.

Below are some examples comparing updated versus previous restitution values:

Species - new value (old value): trumpeter swan - $2,500 ($1,000); Eastern massasauga rattlesnake - $2,500 ($1,000); wild turkey - $500 ($300); white-tailed deer/antlerless - $250 ($400); white-tailed deer/antlered - $500 ($400); walleye - $50 ($10); largemouth bass - $50 ($10); and steelhead - $50 ($10).

The legislation also addressed increased values for "trophy" white-tailed deer.

An additional progressive formula will be applied to bucks with a gross score more than 125 inches on the Boone and Crocket (B&C) scale. Antlered deer scoring under 125 B&C would be valued at $500. Poached deer scoring 125 B&C would have a restitution value of $1,531.25; 150 B&C would result in $4,625 restitution value; and a 170 B&C would call for a $8,585 restitution value.

Former State Representative Bob Latta and State Representative Jimmy Stewart sponsored the new legislation. Governor Ted Strickland signed it into law on December 3.

For more information, call 1-800-WILDLIFE (945-3543) or visit www.wildohio.com (http://www.wildohio.com/)

[Multidigits]

http://www.subscriberpromotions.com/deerpenalty.jpg

[Redlined]

Wow, wish we had some of those kind of beefed up penalties. I'm sure it would make people think twice before acting like fools..............

[redneck1377]

I noticed that the rattle-snake and the swam are given the same value, does that mean that there are more swam than snakes ?

[Redlined]

I noticed that the rattle-snake and the swam are given the same value, does that mean that there are more swam than snakes ?

I'm assuming both are protected or not very numerous.:confused: I know I haven't heard of that type of rattlesnake before, must be indigneous to that area?

[buckfever]

Personally, I LOVE these laws. . . .

However, I'd like to hear the thoughts of people that are opposed to this type of legislation.

Don't these laws "commercialize" hunting by valuing deer according to the size of their racks?

Personally, I applaud Illinois and Iowa, but doubt that KDFWR would ever advocate or consider this type of regulation. For one thing, KDFWR's current policy is to shoot more deer, not less, and fewer deer get killed if our poaching laws had real teeth. To their credit, our CO's will certainly track down and cite poachers, but prosecuting people for poaching deer does not seem to be very high on KDFWR's list of priorities.

Ky's trespassing and "hunting without permission" laws are just as loose. Heck, I couldn't get KDFWR to cite a coonhunter who flat out admitted to David Casey that he trespassed on our farm while coonhunting.

[elkguy]

Personally, I LOVE these laws. . . .

Personally, I applaud Illinois and Iowa, but doubt that KDFWR would ever advocate or consider this type of regulation. For one thing, KDFWR's current policy is to shoot more deer, not less, and fewer deer get killed if our poaching laws had real teeth.

Counseler Buckfever,

You stand corrected.:D Check out the language of HB 680.

Dave

AN ACT relating to hunting and fishing violations.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
âSECTION 1. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 150 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

In addition to criminal penalties set forth in KRS 150.990, the commissioner may initiate civil proceedings in the county in which a wildlife violation occurs to recover civil penalties for any animal taken in violation of KRS 150.180, 150.370, 150.390, 150.470, 150.520, or 150.525, or the administrative regulations promulgated thereunder, in the following amounts:
(1) For each bull elk with at least five (5) points on one (1) antler beam, fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000);

(2) For each white-tailed deer buck with an outside antler spread of greater than fifteen (15) inches, ten thousand dollars ($10,000);

(3) For each wild turkey with a beard length greater than six (6) inches, one thousand dollars ($1,000);

(4) For each black bear, seven thousand dollars ($7,000);

(5) For each paddlefish sturgeon:

(a) For the first offense, the market value of the roe and flesh combined;

(b) For the second offense, double the market value of the roe and flesh combined; and

(c) For the third and each subsequent offense, triple the market value of the roe and flesh combined; and

(6) For each protected wildlife, mussels and fishes, raw fur, or processed wildlife:

(a) For the first offense, the market value of the protected wildlife, mussels and fishes, raw fur, or processed wildlife;

(b) For a second offense, double the market value of the protected wildlife, mussels and fishes, raw fur or processed wildlife; and

(c) For the third and each subsequent offense, triple the market value of the protected wildlife, mussels and fishes, raw fur or processed wildlife.

[GSP]

Any idea why this wording was chosen?

the commissioner may initiate

instead of shall?

[elkguy]

Any idea why this wording was chosen?

the commissioner may initiate

instead of shall?

I don't know. I knew KDFWR was asking for this legislation, but I have never discussed details with them.

[buckfever]

Counseler Buckfever,

You stand corrected.:D Check out the language of HB 680.

Dave

AN ACT relating to hunting and fishing violations.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
âSECTION 1. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 150 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

In addition to criminal penalties set forth in KRS 150.990, the commissioner may initiate civil proceedings in the county in which a wildlife violation occurs to recover civil penalties for any animal taken in violation of KRS 150.180, 150.370, 150.390, 150.470, 150.520, or 150.525, or the administrative regulations promulgated thereunder, in the following amounts:
(1) For each bull elk with at least five (5) points on one (1) antler beam, fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000);

(2) For each white-tailed deer buck with an outside antler spread of greater than fifteen (15) inches, ten thousand dollars ($10,000);

(3) For each wild turkey with a beard length greater than six (6) inches, one thousand dollars ($1,000);

(4) For each black bear, seven thousand dollars ($7,000);

(5) For each paddlefish sturgeon:

(a) For the first offense, the market value of the roe and flesh combined;

(b) For the second offense, double the market value of the roe and flesh combined; and

(c) For the third and each subsequent offense, triple the market value of the roe and flesh combined; and

(6) For each protected wildlife, mussels and fishes, raw fur, or processed wildlife:

(a) For the first offense, the market value of the protected wildlife, mussels and fishes, raw fur, or processed wildlife;

(b) For a second offense, double the market value of the protected wildlife, mussels and fishes, raw fur or processed wildlife; and

(c) For the third and each subsequent offense, triple the market value of the protected wildlife, mussels and fishes, raw fur or processed wildlife.


Wow, great news and I love it. I do stand somewhat corrected, although it's technically a bill introduced by the legislature, not a regulation introduced by KDFWR, ;):D and we don't know whether KDFWR is in favor of it or not. Are they?

In any event, I certainly would like to see some version of this pass, but I have some reservations about how it's worded/structured. I'm not an expert on constitutional law and statute drafting, so I hope that my concerns are misplaced.

First, the bill suggests that the "fine" will actually be civil, not criminal in nature. I'm not sure about this, but since the remedy would only be available only for illegally taken game, courts might interpret it as a "criminal" penalty, regardless of what the legislature calls it. I'm just not sure how money penalties fit into the realm of civil vs. criminal law.

Second, it might be challenged, b/c the fine amounts appear to be fairly "arbitrary". In civil law, a plaintiff is generally only entitled to his actual damages. In this case, the legislature has imposed a mandatory $10,000 civil penalty for poaching a buck with a 15" outside spread. I'm not sure how much the replacement cost is for a 15" spread buck, but $10,000 seems a little steep to me and does not appear to be based on any scientific or hard data. The replacement costs for a 190" 7 yr old buck would likely be far greater than a 75" yearling 6 pointer with a 15" spread. Although I could be completely wrong, Iowa's structured fine system appears to be more in line with the fair market or replacement value of a particular animal. I like the notion of graduated penalty rates.

Third, I would rather see the bill make the penalty mandatory (not optional at the discretion of the commissioner). When you leave the option to impose a penalty or enforce the law up to one person's discretion, you open the door to complaints about the commissioner having unfettered "selective enforcement" powers and the ability to arbitrarily decide who should face a fine and who shouldn't.

David - Do you happen to have a link to this bill or know who is sponsoring it? I'd like to contact the legislators and applaud their efforts.

Lastly, are their any sportsmen's groups that are opposed to this on the basis that the legislature is invading the domain of KDFWR? I would hope not, but if there are, I think it would be important for people to know that KDFWR is actually behind this bill (and I hope they are).

[elkguy]

Wow, great news and I love it. I do stand somewhat corrected, although it's technically a bill introduced by the legislature, not a regulation introduced by KDFWR, ;):D and we don't know whether KDFWR is in favor of it or not. Are they?

David - Do you happen to have a link to this bill or know who is sponsoring it? I'd like to contact the legislators and applaud their efforts.

Lastly, are their any sportsmen's groups that are opposed to this on the basis that the legislature is invading the domain of KDFWR? I would hope not, but if there are, I think it would be important for people to know that KDFWR is actually behind this bill (and I hope they are).

Here is a link to the KDFWR web site that lists legislation. It is near the bottom of the page. And,......it is a bill that KDFWR crafted and found a legislator to sponsor, so you again stand corrected:D So without question, yes, KDFWR strongly supports this bill.

http://fw.ky.gov/08legupdatea.asp?lid=2045&NavPath=C244C369C685

[buckfever]

IMO, this HB 680 is extremely important to Ky's deer and turkey hunting and could really change the landscape. It needs its own thread.

I love the way it is species specific and not tangled up as "hunting without permission" or "trespassing" penalty. This should keep the coonhunters from trying to torpedo it like they did the earlier move to increase trespassing penalties.

[buckfever]

Here is a link to the KDFWR web site that lists legislation. It is near the bottom of the page. And,......it is a bill that KDFWR crafted and found a legislator to sponsor, so you again stand corrected:D So without question, yes, KDFWR strongly supports this bill.

http://fw.ky.gov/08legupdatea.asp?lid=2045&NavPath=C244C369C685

Thanks for the link.

The link to the bill apparently isn't working, but I hope that the sponsors (appear to be Robin Webb and somebody else) enlist the support of some legislators on the other side of the aisle to help tout this bill as a bipartisan effort.

;)

[elkguy]

I got the link to work. The sponsor for HB 680 is Brad Montel from Shelby County.

[buckfever]

I got the link to work. The sponsor for HB 680 is Brad Montel from Shelby County.

For a while there, it kept pulling up a different bill regardless of which one I clicked on.

Brad Montel is from the same district that our farm is located in. I've already been burning up the phone lines trying to contact him. :D

[slickhead slayer]

Wow, great news and I love it. I do stand somewhat corrected, although it's technically a bill introduced by the legislature, not a regulation introduced by KDFWR,.

B, quick question. Doesn't KYDFW have to go through the legislature for regulation changes? Or can they make regulation changes and fines on their own?

I agree that this needs its own thread. Hopefully once Buckfever talks to the sponsor, we can post this in its own thread, with the numbers of the legislative message board.

[Multidigits]

Here's another one, also an agency bill and strongly supported by KYDFWR

HB 768 (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/08RS/HB768/bill.doc)/LM (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/08RS/HB768/LM.doc) (BR 1663)


http://fw.ky.gov/08legupdatea.asp?lid=2045&NavPath=C244C685

[buckfever]

B, quick question. Doesn't KYDFW have to go through the legislature for regulation changes? Or can they make regulation changes and fines on their own?

I agree that this needs its own thread. Hopefully once Buckfever talks to the sponsor, we can post this in its own thread, with the numbers of the legislative message board.

Slick - I'm not a criminal attorney, but I think that it would be impermissible for an agency to establish criminal penalties. I think that duty is relegated exclusively to the legislature, which is elected by the public. Although labeled, a civil penalty, this appears to be restitution based, which is kind of "quasi-criminal" in nature. I'm just not sure if KDFWR would even have the authority to pass this type of regulation. In any event, laws are always harder to defeat in court than regs.