Stiffer Poaching Penalties in KY

[buckfever]

HB 680 introduced by Brad Montel (R) from Shelby/Spencer County. . .

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

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.

[Bray]

Nice to see the government realizing this a problem and upping the consequences. If you are from Shelby or Spencer co. thank the man for introducing this.

[slickhead slayer]

Thats very good news for the deer program. Buckfever, I know you were going to speak to the sponsor of the bill. Hopefully you will be able to give us some feedback on whether or not there will be any opposition to this bill. If there is, we will all have to call our State Reps. let us know what you find out.

[keith meador]

any down side to this? seems it would be very good for KY. Colorado already has a similar law......$10,000.00 for killing trophy animal on top of your fines.......http://www.jeffco.us/news/news_item_T3_R796.htm

[MikeKy]

I think it's great. If this passes maybe I can sleep in my tent without someone shining a spotlight on it and waking me up every half hour or so.

[buckfever]

Am I missing something, b/c I sure don't understand the fact that only a handful of guys are weighing in on this. :confused::confused:


Without question, THIS bill will have the biggest affect on protecting Ky's deer herd (and our mature bucks) since the advent of the one buck rule.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the potential $10,000 fine under this new law (as opposed to the $400 wrist slap under the old law) will serve as a helluva bigger deterrent to most of the poaching that goes on in this state. Apart from the hardcore poachers, I'd guess that most guys will just say "no" instead of going ahead and shooting that big buck at night or on the neighbor's land or under Aunt Betty's tag.

In addition, it stands to reason that as poaching declines, land access will improve. Maybe now, we have a tool to help regain the trust and respect of landowners and farmers.

To me, this is a huge deal, and I'm a little flabbergasted at how this isn't a 6 page thread by now. Instead, you can hear crickets chirp on this thread, while a new crop of 12" minimum spread and "My buck mount from last year" threads are getting a bunch of action.

I just don't get it. IMO, if you fail to call your legislator to show support for this bill, you've got no right to EVER complain about poaching or land access or lack of deer. :mad::(

[GSP]

Buck, I was at a Federation meeting tonight and we had a pretty good discussion about this Bill. There wasn't no big negative comments, there were a lot of folks that threw out some ideas that this needs to be "tweaked" some. A big concern was the way it is written at the sole discretion as to who decides to fill civil suit. This is no way a slam against or toward Jon. It was discussed/suggested that if it comes out of the House that criteria be added as to who/what/when before it is sent to Senate.

Another thought train is to stiffen up the penalty side on the criminal charge and get this done with a one stop case. We all want the CO's working the field, helping the good, arresting the bad. This Bill will double (probably more than that) the amount of time the CO's spend in the courtroom.

[slickhead slayer]

Am I missing something, b/c I sure don't understand the fact that only a handful of guys are weighing in on this. :confused::confused:


Without question, THIS bill will have the biggest affect on protecting Ky's deer herd (and our mature bucks) since the advent of the one buck rule.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the potential $10,000 fine under this new law (as opposed to the $400 wrist slap under the old law) will serve as a helluva bigger deterrent to most of the poaching that goes on in this state. Apart from the hardcore poachers, I'd guess that most guys will just say "no" instead of going ahead and shooting that big buck at night or on the neighbor's land or under Aunt Betty's tag.

In addition, it stands to reason that as poaching declines, land access will improve. Maybe now, we have a tool to help regain the trust and respect of landowners and farmers.

To me, this is a huge deal, and I'm a little flabbergasted at how this isn't a 6 page thread by now. Instead, you can hear crickets chirp on this thread, while a new crop of 12" minimum spread and "My buck mount from last year" threads are getting a bunch of action.

I just don't get it. IMO, if you fail to call your legislator to show support for this bill, you've got no right to EVER complain about poaching or land access or lack of deer. :mad::(

I couldn't agree more. I am shocked this isn't 10 pages by now. We have thread after thread talking about how to get larger deer in Ky. Spread limits, food plots, shortening the season, shooting more does, less gun hunting, no crossbows, moving the rut, QDMA etc etc etc.
I have heard numerous folks with KYDFW that say poaching is a bigger problem than most of us know. And if we could stop the spotlighting, shooting two bucks, tagging it in wifes name, etc, etc, it would be the biggest thing we could do to help having mature bucks.
And the best part of it, unlike every other issue we discuss on growing bigger deer, there is NO downside.
This bill would be a huge`step.

[ukyager]

This is fantastic, now maybe all the low life's will get the idea!

[raven_over_easy]

I'm all for it! In addition the 3 strikes / increased fines, I would also like to see the licenses eligibility to follow a similar path. 1st offense 3 year licenses revoked on progressively to a lifetime ban for 3rd offense.

[Joe Bryan]

Bravo! This should pass with flying colors! Finally a step in the right direction for all of us as sportsman. Hopefully the days of the slap on the wrist will be over!

[buckfever]

Buck, I was at a Federation meeting tonight and we had a pretty good discussion about this Bill. There wasn't no big negative comments, there were a lot of folks that threw out some ideas that this needs to be "tweaked" some. A big concern was the way it is written at the sole discretion as to who decides to fill civil suit. This is no way a slam against or toward Jon. It was discussed/suggested that if it comes out of the House that criteria be added as to who/what/when before it is sent to Senate.

Another thought train is to stiffen up the penalty side on the criminal charge and get this done with a one stop case. We all want the CO's working the field, helping the good, arresting the bad. This Bill will double (probably more than that) the amount of time the CO's spend in the courtroom.

Rick - The reason why KDFWR drafted the fine part to be a civil penalty was to insure that KDFWR would get the proceeds without making it look like it was doing so. If it was simply restitution in a criminal case, the money would go to the general fund. I suspect that KDFWR's reasoning for writing it in this way (instead of simply having the statute levy a $10,000 criminal fine with the proceeds earmarked to the KDFWR) was to soft shoe the issue, so that legislators wouldn't see a big chunk of money going to one agency during a budget crisis.

I believe that drafting the bill in this way was a mistake, b/c I think the legislators will see this as a money grab by KDFWR and might work against its passage. I've already explained the other problems that might arise out of this bill (i.e. penalty is optional and gives commissioner unfettered arbitrary discretion to decide who has to pay), and if it doesn't hold up in court, the law is just a useless piece of paper.

IMO, KDFWR should get the $$ b/c that is the agency tasked with the sole responsibility of enforcing it and I think a lot of legislators would sympathize with that, but these are tough political times given the cut-backs in areas such as education.

Regardless, the most important part of all this is the fact that this bill should be passed/supported for the benefits the sportsmen. In the end, even if the only way to get this bill passed is by devoting the money to the general fund, it should remain a priority of everyone (KDFWR and sportsman alike) to insure that it gets the votes needed.

[GSP]

Rick - The reason why KDFWR drafted the fine part to be a civil penalty was to insure that KDFWR would get the proceeds without making it look like it was doing so. If it was simply restitution in a criminal case, the money would go to the general fund. I suspect that KDFWR's reasoning for writing it in this way (instead of simply having the statute levy a $10,000 criminal fine with the proceeds earmarked to the KDFWR) was to soft shoe the issue, so that legislators wouldn't see a big chunk of money going to one agency during a budget crisis.

I believe that drafting the bill in this way was a mistake, b/c I think the legislators will see this as a money grab by KDFWR and might work against its passage. I've already explained the other problems that might arise out of this bill (i.e. penalty is optional and gives commissioner unfettered arbitrary discretion to decide who has to pay), and if it doesn't hold up in court, the law is just a useless piece of paper.

IMO, KDFWR should get the $$ b/c that is the agency tasked with the sole responsibility of enforcing it and I think a lot of legislators would sympathize with that, but these are tough political times given the cut-backs in areas such as education.

Regardless, the most important part of all this is the fact that this bill should be passed/supported for the benefits the sportsmen. In the end, even if the only way to get this bill passed is by devoting the money to the general fund, it should remain a priority of everyone (KDFWR and sportsman alike) to insure that it gets the votes needed.

Point taken - :)

[AteUp]

Most of the 10 page threads are when people start arguing. So it's probably good news that this one isn't getting a lot of replies. Means most are in support.

[keith meador]

what ^^^^^^^^^^said.....nothing to argue here;)

[buckfever]

Most of the 10 page threads are when people start arguing. So it's probably good news that this one isn't getting a lot of replies. Means most are in support.

I don't disagree, but I think most of us would agree that this is an enormously important bill to maximizing Ky's deer hunting potential.

I guess I'm just kind of surprised at the apparent lack of interest. :(

[keith meador]

I don't disagree, but I think most of us would agree that this is an enormously important bill to maximizing Ky's deer hunting potential.

I guess I'm just kind of surprised at the apparent lack of interest. :(



thread posted at 3:11pm, now has 121 views.....folks are looking, just not posting:)

[buckfever]

thread posted at 3:11pm, now has 121 views.....folks are looking, just not posting:)


I hear ya. . . .

"UK predicted as a 12 seed" thread. Posted at 10:35 pm, now has 226 views. :rolleyes:

[buckfever]

thread posted at 3:11pm, now has 121 views.....folks are looking, just not posting:)

By the way, I may personally "TTT" this thread about 300 times. ;)

[AteUp]

By the way, I may personally "TTT" this thread about 300 times. ;)

You're only 295 away right now.;)

Hooray on the res, BTW.:cool:

[nwest]

That is great news. I'll place a call in the morning.

[12 pointer]

bravo. excellent. I am slow but very supportive! We will see a lot less 2nd buck takens. Is that proper grammer??????:D


21 replies


234 views!

[DEERMD]

Im very glad to see this law, now will it be inforced though? The game wardens can arrest and charge but its ultimately up to the judge to prosecute, or am i wrong? im very ignorant when it comes to the judicial system.

I wish it was 10,000 dollars for every "DEER" killed illegally, not just trophy's. We still have as many doe killed on our far as trophys. So this wont affect those low lifes.

[tenntucky]

sounds like a good plan....why is a trophy buck worth more money than any other deer.....I would think that we have lost many trophy potential bucks to poachers before they reach trophy size. Flat rate across te board for me. Get them where ithurts.

[Hammer]

Like ateup said, threads where most agree get less action. I actually skimmed over the thread 2 times before reading it because the title didn't grab my interest. :o

[predator]

I'd personally like to see it pass. It will make the poachers think twice about pulling the trigger.

But, but, and I don't have the specific KRS regulations in front of me that this bill refers to, but with some on here calling you a poacher if your orange hat falls off while your in a tree and you don't pick it back up immediately,:eek: could this bill be ripe for abuse with this type of money at stake? Again, I don't have the regulations in front of me, but if they are like most KRS, poaching is not clearly defined and is open for interpretation. But hey, thats why we have lawyers, isn't it?:D

[Bray]

I'd personally like to see it pass. It will make the poachers think twice about pulling the trigger.

But, but, and I don't have the specific KRS regulations in front of me that this bill refers to, but with some on here calling you a poacher if your orange hat falls off while your in a tree and you don't pick it back up immediately,:eek: could this bill be ripe for abuse with this type of money at stake? Again, I don't have the regulations in front of me, but if they are like most KRS, poaching is not clearly defined and is open for interpretation. But hey, thats why we have lawyers, isn't it?:D

It looks like this bill is for the Illegal harvest of animals. Colarodo has something similar. The 10,000 dollar fine is like a "replacement" fee.

Buck, I have looked this thing over on the LRC website. The only thing I see working against this bill is how the penalties will be enforced. The civil suit is great in theory, but the legislators aren't going to like it. Maybe it will be modified and the KDFWR can keep the funds. I am all for the bill but the civil suit kind of scares me. Giving the option for some people to be prosecuted and others not is a little unsettling.

[Multidigits]

I'm probably wrong, but could this bill be used by an individual to recover the costs of an animal poached from his property, even though the animals belong to the state?

Seems with a value for letting animals gain some age, that deer managers might be able to recover from illegal hunting on their properties.

[huntr467]

sounds like a good plan....why is a trophy buck worth more money than any other deer.....I would think that we have lost many trophy potential bucks to poachers before they reach trophy size. Flat rate across te board for me. Get them where ithurts.
this was my question as well. I agree some poachers are out for antlers . In our area they shoot anything that will stand still long enough.
I understand the direction here, but it seems to show us that the dept. may be gearing more towards promoting "trophy" hunting by attempting to protect select animals. They are saying that fawns, does, and small bucks are not worthy...thats not right. If they shoot that doe she could be carrying the next state record.

As we all have said poaching is poaching.

would love to see the high fines but it should be across the board... one price for all!!

[Multidigits]

this was my question as well. I agree some poachers are out for antlers . In our area they shoot anything that will stand still long enough.
I understand the direction here, but it seems to show us that the dept. may be gearing more towards promoting "trophy" hunting by attempting to protect select animals. They are saying that fawns, does, and small bucks are not worthy...thats not right. If they shoot that doe she could be carrying the next state record.

As we all have said poaching is poaching.

would love to see the high fines but it should be across the board... one price for all!!


Trophy bucks are worth more. Some people poach simply because the deer is a trophy buck. They have more value in several forms.

[buckfever]

It looks like this bill is for the Illegal harvest of animals. Colarodo has something similar. The 10,000 dollar fine is like a "replacement" fee.

Buck, I have looked this thing over on the LRC website. The only thing I see working against this bill is how the penalties will be enforced. The civil suit is great in theory, but the legislators aren't going to like it. Maybe it will be modified and the KDFWR can keep the funds. I am all for the bill but the civil suit kind of scares me. Giving the option for some people to be prosecuted and others not is a little unsettling.

Bray - I made some similar observations about this bill in the "Ohio Replacement Value" thread.

I'm probably wrong, but could this bill be used by an individual to recover the costs of an animal poached from his property, even though the animals belong to the state?

Seems with a value for letting animals gain some age, that deer managers might be able to recover from illegal hunting on their properties.

I don't think this bill was intended to create a private right of action for anyone other than KDFWR.

I think one of the reasons why no state has gone in that direction is b/c it might cloud the issue of private ownership vs. public ownership of the wildlife on a private piece of property.

That certainly would serve as an additional deterrent though.

[KY_Fried]

Stiffer penalties are pointless. They need to just spend more $ and get more CO's so they can enforce the laws we have now. What good is stiffer penalties going to do when there's hardly anyone around to catch the poachers to begin with? I bet you can raise the penalty for poaching a deer to a $10,000 fine and 10 years in prison (something I'm sure a lot of you would be all for :rolleyes:) and it wouldn't change a thing.

[Bray]

Bray - I made some similar observations about this bill in the "Ohio Replacement Value" thread.



I don't think this bill was intended to create a private right of action for anyone other than KDFWR.

I think one of the reasons why no state has gone in that direction is b/c it might cloud the issue of private ownership vs. public ownership of the wildlife on a private piece of property.

That certainly would serve as an additional deterrent though.

I haven't seen that thread, I will have to check into it. This is a very interesting topic and I am glad to see Kentucky trying to keep up with the game. As we all know Kentucky has a ton of potential for trophy level hunting. Agressive legislation like this gives the KDFWR the bite to back up it's bark and is a great tool to help ensure that Kentucky continues to be a top whitetail state.

Like I said earlier, if this guy is your rep. let the man know you appreciate his hard work.

[predator]

this was my question as well. I agree some poachers are out for antlers . In our area they shoot anything that will stand still long enough.
I understand the direction here, but it seems to show us that the dept. may be gearing more towards promoting "trophy" hunting by attempting to protect select animals. They are saying that fawns, does, and small bucks are not worthy...thats not right. If they shoot that doe she could be carrying the next state record.

As we all have said poaching is poaching.

would love to see the high fines but it should be across the board... one price for all!!

I can see where 467 is coming from and I agree to some degree that maybe stiffer fines for poaching all animals might be in order, but I think this is a step in the right direction. This same arguement was used to defeat a simular resolution at the last LKS convention.

BF-I just read your post on the Ohio thread. Your thinking is, being this bill is species specific, it shouldn't draw the ire of other groups with concerns such as I earlier posted. Care to explain?

[buckfever]

I haven't seen that thread, I will have to check into it. This is a very interesting topic and I am glad to see Kentucky trying to keep up with the game. As we all know Kentucky has a ton of potential for trophy level hunting. Agressive legislation like this gives the KDFWR the bite to back up it's bark and is a great tool to help ensure that Kentucky continues to be a top whitetail state.

Like I said earlier, if this guy is your rep. let the man know you appreciate his hard work.

I agree with your assessment. When I speak with Buford, I will pass along the sportsmen's appreciation, and I will try to discuss some of the potential issues surrounding this bill - arbitrary enforcement by commissioner, arbitrary amounts, use of civil penalty to insure KDFWR gets money, etc. etc. I will also make some recommendations, including possibly setting aside a "reward" amount dedicated to private individuals whose tips lead to a successful prosecution (which leads to KDFWR's recovery of the levied fines). Maybe $250 for a turkey, $500 for a 15" buck. Once you start rewarding people for turning in poachers, I think that puts a whole new light on law enforcement and might help to deter concerns about enforcement (such as stated by Ky_Fried above).

[buckfever]

I can see where 467 is coming from and I agree to some degree that maybe stiffer fines for poaching all animals might be in order, but I think this is a step in the right direction. This same arguement was used to defeat a simular resolution at the last LKS convention.

BF-I just read your post on the Ohio thread. Your thinking is, being this bill is species specific, it shouldn't draw the ire of other groups with concerns such as I earlier posted. Care to explain?

Second part first. Sure be happy to explain what I was thinking. About 5-6 years ago, there was a proposed house bill that sought to significantly increase the fines for hunting-related trespassing. The Houndsmen's and coonhunting groups strongly opposed this measure. In the end, KDFWR capitulated to their will, and, without that support, the bill died a quick death in committee. This is the first piece of proposed legislation since then that directly addresses the poaching/trespassing issues.

Because there is no heavy fine in this bill associated with the particular game species that the houndsman are after, they can continue to trespass at their leisure without having to worry about a huge $10,000 fine if they get caught hunting on land where they don't have permission. In other words, they have no compelling interest in seeing it defeated.

As for Kyhunter467's comments, I think we all agree that poaching is poaching. The problem is that this principled position would never have any chance of passing into law. Simply put, the legislature isn't going to fine somebody an exorbitatn amount like $10,000 for poaching a deer when we have other legislators already claiming that KDFWR needs to reduce/eliminate the herd in certain areas. If they were going to start legislating heavy fines like this, it would start with things that piss off the average citizen a heckuva lot more than a poached deer or turkey. . .i.e. things such as drunk driving or failure to pay child support, etc. etc.

By implicitly basing the bill on the so-called "value" of trophy animals, the bill (IMO) has a much better chance of passing, b/c the heavy fines can be directly tied to an economic impact, rather than on some moralistic principles that just don't have much weight outside of the sporting community.

[rgb62]

I'm all for stiffer penalities for poaching. Like others, I'm wondering why cow elk and does aren't included. Seems like they would be just as important where the herds still need to grow some. Also, I'm wondering if civil prosecution goes to the same court as criminal. The problem around here us the local judge seems to think hunting violations aren't worth his time or if he throws them out he'll get that guys vote in the next election. We all need to pay more attention to how judges rule on hunting and fishing violations when it comes time to vote.

[deadaim]

The reward would help, more COs would be great. Just like police fighting drugs the informant will be an important part of catching poachers..............

[grouseguy]

Stiffer penalties are pointless. They need to just spend more $ and get more CO's so they can enforce the laws we have now. What good is stiffer penalties going to do when there's hardly anyone around to catch the poachers to begin with? I bet you can raise the penalty for poaching a deer to a $10,000 fine and 10 years in prison (something I'm sure a lot of you would be all for :rolleyes:) and it wouldn't change a thing.

I have to agree. It was just last week that it was reported that KY led the nation with a 12% increase in its prison population and that the USA had a greater percentage of its adults inprisoned than any other country in the world, so if jail time won't deter criminal behavior, I'm pretty sure that increased fines are pretty well a waste of everyone's time.

IMHO, increasing fines only serve to make law abiding sportsmen "feel" better about the situation, while not having any meaningful effect on the "problem", if there even is a problem.

[quackrstackr]

IMHO, increasing fines only serve to make law abiding sportsmen "feel" better about the situation, while not having any meaningful effect on the "problem",

I agree with gg although I have no doubt that poaching is probably a problem in some areas of the state. It appears to be a feel good bill to me.

I would just about wager that a very minute percentage of the animals poached in KY actually fall under this new, stricter penalty anyway. They should up the dollar value across the board and put some teeth into existing laws, including those associated with the trespassing houndsmen that nobody wants to address.

[Valley Station]

Think the judges are going to fine a local 19 year old "dumby" , the same as a 50 year old "fat cat from Chicago" ?? Same fine for nonresidents??
Who will determine replacement cost for quail, grouse, mussels, bats,etc.?

[buckfever]

I'm pretty sure that increased fines are pretty well a waste of everyone's time.

IMHO, increasing fines only serve to make law abiding sportsmen "feel" better about the situation, while not having any meaningful effect on the "problem", if there even is a problem.

I disagree for several reasons. First, I think the potential of a huge fine looming out there will discourage a lot of the 2 buck killers in the state.
Second, from my perspective, POACHING (and disregard for landowner's rights) has the single biggest negative access on land access. Help to eradicate poaching and you're taking a big step towards generating more sympathy for hunters and sportsmen in the public eye. Third, although clearly not a cure-all, this bill is IMO clearly a step in the right direction. Instead of simply bitching about it being a "waste of time", how about coming up with a better solution (although your comment "if there even is a problem" seems to suggest that you don't view poaching as a problem that KY needs to address)?

I agree with gg although I have no doubt that poaching is probably a problem in some areas of the state. It appears to be a feel good bill to me.

I would just about wager that a very minute percentage of the animals poached in KY actually fall under this new, stricter penalty anyway. They should up the dollar value across the board and put some teeth into existing laws, including those associated with the trespassing houndsmen that nobody wants to address.

Who cares if it's a "feel good" bill. If it helps even a little bit, isn't that better than not helping at all?

I think most would love to see them simply toughen up poaching/trespassing laws with heavier sentences and fines, but that apparently isn't politically feasible.

To steal a quote, "if if's, and's or but's were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry freaking Christmas".

Think the judges are going to fine a local 19 year old "dumby" , the same as a 50 year old "fat cat from Chicago" ?? Same fine for nonresidents??
Who will determine replacement cost for quail, grouse, mussels, bats,etc.?

What would you propose then VS? What's your solution? Man, I just don't understand the griping. Sure, our system is flawed, but you do the best you can with what you've got.

Seems to me that we have 1 of 3 options: (a) Come up with an entirely new system; (b) Promote concepts that help sportsmen and fit within the existing system; or (c) Sit back and bitch about how America is going to hell in a handbasket. :D

I think this bill falls under category (b).

[Multidigits]

HB 768

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

[quackrstackr]

I'm not griping, I just don't see this bill as the great saviour that some evidently do.

I always subscribe to the train of thought of not putting a bandaid on a wound that really needs stitches. I also don't see the enormous ring of "trophy poachers" that some must, either.

But, regardless of the penalties... they have to be caught first.

[grouseguy]

I disagree for several reasons. First, I think the potential of a huge fine looming out there will discourage a lot of the 2 buck killers in the state.
Second, from my perspective, POACHING (and disregard for landowner's rights) has the single biggest negative access on land access. Help to eradicate poaching and you're taking a big step towards generating more sympathy for hunters and sportsmen in the public eye. Third, although clearly not a cure-all, this bill is IMO clearly a step in the right direction. Instead of simply bitching about it being a "waste of time", how about coming up with a better solution (although your comment "if there even is a problem" seems to suggest that you don't view poaching as a problem that KY needs to address)?



BF,

I'm sorry, but you've mistook my cynicism and apathy for griping ... I simply don't care and won't be working for or against this bill. I was just throwing out my 2 cents worth. I think its a waste of time and resources, while you see a potential benefit, which explains why you're working to support it and I'm not.

My only purpose was to point out the obvious, that increased fines and penalties have very little if any effect on curbing bad behaviors.

I know you're sincere in your beliefs, and I know you care, so I wish you the best of luck in your efforts.

[pedigo]

Sounds good to me. I just hope that they will se it through.

[Bray]

I agree with your assessment. When I speak with Buford, I will pass along the sportsmen's appreciation, and I will try to discuss some of the potential issues surrounding this bill - arbitrary enforcement by commissioner, arbitrary amounts, use of civil penalty to insure KDFWR gets money, etc. etc. I will also make some recommendations, including possibly setting aside a "reward" amount dedicated to private individuals whose tips lead to a successful prosecution (which leads to KDFWR's recovery of the levied fines). Maybe $250 for a turkey, $500 for a 15" buck. Once you start rewarding people for turning in poachers, I think that puts a whole new light on law enforcement and might help to deter concerns about enforcement (such as stated by Ky_Fried above).

The reward idea is one of the greatest I have heard so far.

To Those nay sayers:
The benifits to an increase in fines are two fold. First, you are going to get more money for no extra cost. The KDFWR is a self funded organization, if they bring in more money they can afford to hire more people, put more money into habitat, and generally do a better job then they are doing now. Mind you all of this extra revenue isn't from innocent tax payers it's from delinquents. It's basically free money to the department.

Secondly, higher penalties for crimes in general may not be that great of a deterent for the average criminal (as someone stated earlier). Your average poacher isn't the average criminal (if that makes sense). Somebody hunting on his wifes tag isn't likely to go out and knock off a 7-11. But take the guy hunting on his wifes tag, throw in a 10,000 dollar fine, and a beefed up telecheck review and I think he may weigh his options before heading back out to kill his second buck. A 10,000 dollar fine tacked onto a murder sentance isn't going to affect the murder rate one bit. But at 10,000 dollar fine on spotlighting a deer will. It just wouldn't be worth 10,000 dollars to kill an extra buck.

Now pair these together and you have the department recieving extra revenue for what it already does. Throw in the telecheck review, possible rewards, the ability to hire some new game wardens and I gaurantee the "poaching" problem isn't as bad as right now. This isn't a be all end all but it is a heck of a step in the right direction.

[johnnypossum]

im glad to see the hammer finally start to come down on poachers

[huntr467]

BF,
you keep stating that you think it will make the 2 buck killers think twice. According to what I read their second buck or poached buck could be a 4 pt. and it would not be penalized as much as a 150" 10 pt. the penalty is for a certain size animal unless I am missing something here.

this is kinda like lets give car thieves stiffer penalties for beamers than we do for chevys:rolleyes:.
But I do see your point about getting the bill pushed through easier the way it is written.
Are these going to be maximum fines that the judge can choose how severe a fine up to those limits or are they going to be minimum or mandatory?

Like some others have posted its really up to the CO's and judges to make the difference.

[Valley Station]

Buck,
Dumb Ol' me, has a question.
If this becomes law, say a 12-year shoots a 15" wide "trophy class" buck on a neighbors property during bow season.
Will his single parent Mom have to pay a $10,000.00 fine or will she go to jail for a year for not paying the fine??
Will the Dang poacher be placed in a state orphanage??

[buckfever]

Buck,
Dumb Ol' me, has a question.
If this becomes law, say a 12-year shoots a 15" wide "trophy class" buck on a neighbors property during bow season.
Will his single parent Mom have to pay a $10,000.00 fine

I dunno. The kid would be liable for the $10,000 fine if the commissioner opted to enforce it. I'm not sure if the kid's liability for the fine would be transferable to his Mom or not.

or will she go to jail for a year for not paying the fine??

I dunno, but I doubt it. To my knowledge, people aren't put in jail for failing to pay civil debts, except in rare cases like failing to pay child support.

Will the Dang poacher be placed in a state orphanage??

Probably not, but maybe he should be if his Momma can't teach him any better than what she already is. ;)

Look, if you think this law is going to be too hard on all the 12 yr old trespassing poachers of the world, call up your legislator and tell him so.

Hell, I'm sure you could find some instance of some poor souls that can't pay the existing fines for poaching, and their families are now starving b/c of the fine and the poachers inability to hunt b/c that mean ol' state took their gun and hunting license. So while you're explaining about how poor old 12 yr. old Johnny can't afford the fine, maybe you ought to go on and ask your legislator to just get rid of our existing poaching laws.:rolleyes:

Smart Arse.

[Valley Station]

Thanks for your professional legal opinion.

[turk2di]

Sounds good to me. Use the fine money to hire additional CO's!

[CSS archer]

It's obvious that something needs to be done. It's wrong for legal hunter to buy property or lease property for serious money, when a poacher can trespass and kill a deer or turkey for $200-$500 IF he get's caught....

I think FL has a law where it is a felony to trespass with a firearm.

[Feedman]

I think this is a good bill and a step in the right direction to curb poaching.
My question is this: How are they going to collect the fines after they get a judgement. Will the judge decide this? Some people may be able to pay $10,000 but there are a lot that won't be able to come up with that much money very easily.

[MikeKy]

I am by nature suspicious of politicians, especially lawyer politicians, so I went back and re-read the KRS's that must be violated before civil action can be taken. I did this to assure myself that this bill is more than just something to insure high employment for lawyers. It seems to me that the bill is directed toward professional poachers, not someone that pops a doe because Aunt May is broke and needs meat. The specific statutes cited seem to address the need to shut down the large black market in big game heads, sturgeon and sturgeon roe and even mussels. From what I've seen lately in several outdoor magazines and on the internet, the black market for these items is huge and there are some pretty unsavory characters involved. Recent raids have recovered stolen deer mounts and poached heads that had been sold for $10,000 and up and they also netted large quantities of drugs and stolen guns and ATV's. The people involved in professional poaching aren't just poachers, they're professional criminals that will steal your game, your mounted heads, your guns, boats, ATV's, dogs and your life if they think it's necessary. I firmly believe this problem is far more widespread than most of us realize. It's big time crime rings and serious business and I think this bill attacks the problem head on by giving KDFWR recourse to pursue hardened criminals that plea bargain their way out of serious criminal charges and penalties. Kind of like the guy that was arrested for sodomy but plea bargained it down to following too close. Small criminal fine but now the door will be open to large civil penalties. I'm even more supportive of it than I was at first glance.

[StaleyEMT]

I support it wholeheartedly, in the worst case scenario, if it doesn't
slow down the poaching, at least they are making an attempt to do
something.:cool:

[DW]

I don't support this law. Sounds good huh! Just remember its hard enough for C.O's to get violators prosecuted now. Imagine if this law were in place. No Judge in this commonwealth nor any County attorney is going to try prosecute and convict a guy when civil litigation could be a possibilty. Then Civil litigation falls within the discretion of the Commissioner. Guys this will be the worst thing that can happen. The Commissioner is a politician. If you think this will be a law for everyone your mistaken. Just a personal opinion

[Multidigits]

I don't support this law. Sounds good huh! Just remember its hard enough for C.O's to get violators prosecuted now. Imagine if this law were in place. No Judge in this commonwealth nor any County attorney is going to try prosecute and convict a guy when civil litigation could be a possibilty. Then Civil litigation falls within the discretion of the Commissioner. Guys this will be the worst thing that can happen. The Commissioner is a politician. If you think this will be a law for everyone your mistaken. Just a personal opinion

I disagree....this would have no effect on a CO's case. It would come later after the conviction and after the Commissioner decides there is just cause to seek a replacement cost. It likely would not be used in every case in the system but could be used in those where it's needed. Same as Lacy is used now.

[ng270]

a poacher can trespass and kill a deer or turkey for $200-$500 IF he get's caught....Perhaps the best irony in this thread (to me) is that on any thread suggesting hikes in NR license prices, some people seem to believe that higher NR license costs would improve KY's 'trophy' potential by discouraging NR participation. I haven't kept track, but are some of those same people arguing that higher penalties for poachers won't discourage poacher 'participation'? Based on what CSS posted, it looks like right now a poacher's 2nd buck (if he's caught) costs him about the same as my NR buck. The biggest difference is, I pay it every time; the poacher probably doesn't.

Or, looked at another way, if KY is producing trophies of the quality of states like KS, Iowa, and Illinois, why not "charge" poachers at least as much for their poached buck as it would have cost them to go and legally harvest it there? :confused: What's the incentive to go somewhere else to "scratch the itch" legally after your resident KY tag is filled in September?

[huntr467]

I have another question about this that maybe some of you attorneys can answer.
Say a guy is caught poaching at nite with a light and he shoots a buck that falls under this category of "trophy".
How are they going to prove that he did it intentionally? That he could actually knew what he was shooting at 150yds in the dark using a light?
Then they will fall back on previous cases that were prosecuted under lesser penalties. He can just say he did not know it was a 17" 10 pt. he was just shooting a deer. What are the odds of getting a conviction?
Maybe I watch to much tv but it seems it will be very difficult to prove the intent was there to shoot a trophy animal.

I understand where Mikeky is coming from and maybe this bill would apply to those "professional" poachers and I am sure there are some of them around. But in reality, the majority of the poaching is not done by "professional" poachers.
And as I stated in a previous post, Buckfever thinks its going to curb the people who shoot 2 bucks. I dont see how...their second buck would have to be of trophy standards to apply. They could still shoot a small 8 or 6 and not face as severe penalty as the regular weekend nite hunters who lucked up and shot a set of eyes in a field that yielded 150"s of horn.

[Bowhunter10]

I agree with your assessment. When I speak with Buford, I will pass along the sportsmen's appreciation, and I will try to discuss some of the potential issues surrounding this bill - arbitrary enforcement by commissioner, arbitrary amounts, use of civil penalty to insure KDFWR gets money, etc. etc. I will also make some recommendations, including possibly setting aside a "reward" amount dedicated to private individuals whose tips lead to a successful prosecution (which leads to KDFWR's recovery of the levied fines). Maybe $250 for a turkey, $500 for a 15" buck. Once you start rewarding people for turning in poachers, I think that puts a whole new light on law enforcement and might help to deter concerns about enforcement (such as stated by Ky_Fried above).


Personally, I would like to see stiffer penalties across the board, any turkey, any deer, 10,000 dollars. If you want to poach be prepared to pay.

I think; may initiate civil proceedings, should be changed to shall initiate civil proceedings.

Let’s take what we can get and pass this bill.

Buckfever, A 500 dollar reward for private individuals who turns in poacher is a great idea. I think a 1000 dollar reward would lead to the end of poaching in KY. Lets face it, it is almost impossible for one CO per county to catch an experienced poacher. Private Citizens must get involved in order to stop poaching.

[Valley Station]

When "Critter-Ridders" start gettin' $1000.00 a "poacher" the heads will roll.

[DW]

I disagree....this would have no effect on a CO's case. It would come later after the conviction and after the Commissioner decides there is just cause to seek a replacement cost. It likely would not be used in every case in the system but could be used in those where it's needed. Same as Lacy is used now. I understand what your thinking, but I have been in the Criminal Justice system for awhile. I will promise you it will have an effect. Talked to some court officials this morning on this proposed law. Not many comments were made, just alot of eye rolling. You have to remember alot of these people don't hunt or fish.

[buckfever]

I have another question about this that maybe some of you attorneys can answer.
Say a guy is caught poaching at nite with a light and he shoots a buck that falls under this category of "trophy".
How are they going to prove that he did it intentionally? That he could actually knew what he was shooting at 150yds in the dark using a light?
Then they will fall back on previous cases that were prosecuted under lesser penalties. He can just say he did not know it was a 17" 10 pt. he was just shooting a deer. What are the odds of getting a conviction?
Maybe I watch to much tv but it seems it will be very difficult to prove the intent was there to shoot a trophy animal.

I understand where Mikeky is coming from and maybe this bill would apply to those "professional" poachers and I am sure there are some of them around. But in reality, the majority of the poaching is not done by "professional" poachers.
And as I stated in a previous post, Buckfever thinks its going to curb the people who shoot 2 bucks. I dont see how...their second buck would have to be of trophy standards to apply. They could still shoot a small 8 or 6 and not face as severe penalty as the regular weekend nite hunters who lucked up and shot a set of eyes in a field that yielded 150"s of horn.

It ain't a perfect law, but it's a step in the right direction. For your first question, the prosecutor wouldn't need to prove that he intended to kill a "trophy" buck. They'd only need to prove that he poached the buck and that it met the minimum standard to have the penalty imposed.

No doubt, this lawn needs some work, and I doubt this law would ever make it through committee if presented exactly as written. I predict the "commissioner's discretion" stuff will get deep-sixed in favor of some different form of penalty that's mandatory/automatic. I suspect that the reason it was drafted that way was b/c KDFWR figured they'd rather have the option to press the issue, b/c they knew that a good number of the poachers they catch don't have 2 nickels to rub together, let alone $10,000.

You may be right that this law isn't going to affect the guy whose second buck is really small, but I'd guess that most 2 buck hunters aren't too interested in illegally shooting a forky.

Also, IMO, it's really not accurate to talk about this law being for "trophy" animals when you really read the bill. It doesn't take much of a buck to hit 15" for his outside spread. Nearly every 3 yr old would exceed that threshold as would a very large number of 2 yr old deer. The same thing applies for the turkeys. The defined cut-off for turkeys is a tom with a "6 inch beard". Hell, that practically every mature tom in the woods, as well as about 30% of all the jakes.

[Multidigits]

When "Critter-Ridders" start gettin' $1000.00 a "poacher" the heads will roll.


What's your solution other than doing nothing?

[Multidigits]

I understand what your thinking, but I have been in the Criminal Justice system for awhile. I will promise you it will have an effect. Talked to some court officials this morning on this proposed law. Not many comments were made, just alot of eye rolling. You have to remember alot of these people don't hunt or fish.

Hence they won't/can't understand the value of a trophy deer or even why people poach. We all know it's not hunger thaqt drives it 99.9% of the time.

IF the Dept., through it's legal team show the courts what these animals are worth and why high tech poachers are in it for the money, then the nature of this crime might be understood a bit better.

[buckfever]

No Judge in this commonwealth nor any County attorney is going to try prosecute and convict a guy when civil litigation could be a possibilty.

What? What in the world do you base this on? In EVERY criminal case where an innocent person is damaged or injured during the commission of a crime, the victim has the option of filing a civil suit to recover their damages. And what's more. . .the judge knows when he convicts the guy that that conviction is usually conclusive proof of his liability to the victim in the civil suit.

I'm kind of afraid to ask what you mean when you say you're "in the criminal justice system". . . :rolleyes:

[MikeKy]

[quote=DW;560659] Just remember its hard enough for C.O's to get violators prosecuted now. Imagine if this law were in place. No Judge in this commonwealth nor any County attorney is going to try prosecute and convict a guy when civil litigation could be a possibilty. /quote]

Then the judges and county attorneys aren't doing their jobs and that's even more reason for this bill to become law. If the judges and county attorneys won't fulfill their obligations to the public then this would give KDFWR another avenue to pursue justice.

[MikeKy]

Buckfever, A 500 dollar reward for private individuals who turns in poacher is a great idea. I think a 1000 dollar reward would lead to the end of poaching in KY. Lets face it, it is almost impossible for one CO per county to catch an experienced poacher. Private Citizens must get involved in order to stop poaching.[/

Times have sure changed. I did report a poacher back in the mid 80's. The guy spotlighted a huge 10 point on my grandparents farm the night before gun season opened. If I remember right, bow season was also closed. He used a rifle and was definitely not supposed to be on the property. He only took the head. Everything about it was illegal. I called the CO, told him the name, where the guy lived, where it happened and how it happened. He said that if he wasn't an eyewitness to it there was nothing he could do. I asked him if he caught me hauling around a dead buck in the back of my truck in the middle of July was there anything he could do about it. He just kept saying that he had to be an eyewitness to the actual taking of the game in order to prosecute. That kind of dampened my enthusiasm for reporting poachers for a while. Don't know if he just didn't want to do his job or if he felt the judge and county attorney wouldn't do theirs. It still makes me mad to think about it.

[slickhead slayer]

I have another question about this that maybe some of you attorneys can answer.
Say a guy is caught poaching at nite with a light and he shoots a buck that falls under this category of "trophy".
How are they going to prove that he did it intentionally? That he could actually knew what he was shooting at 150yds in the dark using a light?
Then they will fall back on previous cases that were prosecuted under lesser penalties. He can just say he did not know it was a 17" 10 pt. he was just shooting a deer. What are the odds of getting a conviction?
Maybe I watch to much tv but it seems it will be very difficult to prove the intent was there to shoot a trophy animal.


.

You watch too much TV. In court, the judge decides on the amount of evidence provided. Its not a murder case where you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. If their is reasonable evidence to convict you, a judge will convict you.
How is catching a guy at night using a spotlight, not MORE THAN sufficient evidence to convict him???? And it doesn't matter if he intended on poaching a "trophy" size buck or not. If found guilty of poaching, then he would get the fine for poaching a trophy deer.
stop watching Matlock man.

[slickhead slayer]

I am shocked that anyone would suggest that a $10,000 fine wouldn't deter anyone. thats just crazy. It might not deter a murderer, or a rapist. But I bet most poachers have never even been arrested, or in general are law abiding citizens.
we had a 15 year trespssing problem, tried everything. A 15 year problem ended when the judge told them he would jail them, no questions asked if they were arrested the second time on our property.

I know there were alot of doubters on here when KYDFW allowed telechek to be viewable by the public. Said it wouldn't stop anything, nobody could prove it, etc, etc. Thats been proven wrong, its been highly succesful. and many have been prosecuted.

This bill will help stop poaching.......PERIOD!!!!!! especially repeat poachers. I can't imagine a guy poaching again after a $10,000 fine.
The only people who should be against this are poachers.

[huntr467]

You watch too much TV. In court, the judge decides on the amount of evidence provided. Its not a murder case where you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. If their is reasonable evidence to convict you, a judge will convict you.
How is catching a guy at night using a spotlight, not MORE THAN sufficient evidence to convict him???? And it doesn't matter if he intended on poaching a "trophy" size buck or not. If found guilty of poaching, then he would get the fine for poaching a trophy deer.
stop watching Matlock man.
Matlock..how old are you?;)
YOu missed my point. ANd you are wrong according to your last sentence, thats the whole point of this thread. I agree he would be found guilty of poaching under the current law but the new proposed bill would determine the fine for his poaching based on how big of a buck he poached.
I would think that a good attorney could argue the fact ....
with 2 poachers standing in front of the judge who both were just caught shooting a deer at nite with a light one killed 4pt. the other a 17" 10pt. you mean to tell me two different fines could be assessed based on the luck of the shooters.
Sounds like a lot court time to me...just make it across the board and be done with it..maybe not $10000 but a several thousand would suffice and make them pay it or spend some time in jail...no plea bargaining, no if ands or but ..it is what it is doe, buck, turkey or whatever. JMHO

[NonTyp]

This bill will help poaching.......PERIOD!!!!!! especially repeat poachers. I can't imagine a guy poaching again after a $10,000 fine.
The only people who should be against this are poachers.

I don't see how this bill will help poaching!:D

I hope this bill makes it through!

[DW]

[quote=DW;560659] Just remember its hard enough for C.O's to get violators prosecuted now. Imagine if this law were in place. No Judge in this commonwealth nor any County attorney is going to try prosecute and convict a guy when civil litigation could be a possibilty. /quote]

Then the judges and county attorneys aren't doing their jobs and that's even more reason for this bill to become law. If the judges and county attorneys won't fulfill their obligations to the public then this would give KDFWR another avenue to pursue justice.
There is already a law on the books. It states that no prosecutor shall fail to prosecute the provisions of chapter 150. Yet it happens all the time.

[MikeKy]

I am shocked that anyone would suggest that a $10,000 fine wouldn't deter anyone. thats just crazy.


A lot of spotlighters aren't deterred now and they are looking at the possibility of a $1000 fine, court costs, replacement cost and loss of their gun and vehicle in criminal court. That could add up pretty fast. Tack on another $10,000 in civil penalties plus the cost of hiring a lawyer and that might get their attention.

[DW]

What? What in the world do you base this on? In EVERY criminal case where an innocent person is damaged or injured during the commission of a crime, the victim has the option of filing a civil suit to recover their damages. And what's more. . .the judge knows when he convicts the guy that that conviction is usually conclusive proof of his liability to the victim in the civil suit.

I'm kind of afraid to ask what you mean when you say you're "in the criminal justice system". . . :rolleyes:I base this on my work experince within the system. No Judge or Prosecutor is going to convict a guy knowing there could be a $15,000 dollar civil case filed. If it does pass Fish and wildlife will need a team of lawyers to respond to motions throughout the state. Like I said I understand the thinking on this. Just think about this. The penality for Illegally harvesting a deer now is $100-$1,000 in fines, up to a year in jail, forfeiture of equipment and shall fofeit licenses for a period of 1 to 3 years. Pretty stiff. If the law we have now were prosecuted on the high end, I believe this wouldn't be a discussion.

[buckfever]

I base this on my work experince within the system. No Judge or Prosecutor is going to convict a guy knowing there could be a $15,000 dollar civil case filed. If it does pass Fish and wildlife will need a team of lawyers to respond to motions throughout the state. Like I said I understand the thinking on this. Just think about this. The penality for Illegally harvesting a deer now is $100-$1,000 in fines, up to a year in jail, forfeiture of equipment and shall fofeit licenses for a period of 1 to 3 years. Pretty stiff. If the law we have now were prosecuted on the high end, I believe this wouldn't be a discussion.

Well, I don't know about your "work experience", but I spend a good bit of time in the courtroom myself, and my experiences don't even remotely resemble yours. In fact, I can't imagine any judge or prosecutor spending a second going through the thought process that you claim happens regularly in the court system.

Frankly, some of the hypothetical justifications for trying to defeat this bill are so bizarre that it's counter-productive to even address them, so I'll just stop here.

[DW]

Well, I don't know about your "work experience", but I spend a good bit of time in the courtroom myself, and my experiences don't even remotely resemble yours. In fact, I can't imagine any judge or prosecutor spending a second going through the thought process that you claim happens regularly in the court system.

Frankly, some of the hypothetical justifications for trying to defeat this bill are so bizarre that it's counter-productive to even address them, so I'll just stop here. I have over 13 years experience. I will bet you that I spend more time in court. PM me if you wish details. It's like any other proposed law. some like it, some do not. You do, I don't. I'm baseing my opposition through experience. If you can't imagine a Judge or prosecutor hesitating your experince in the court system has been narrowly defined. You system must be to the letter. And if that is the case you shouldn't need this new law. Best wishes.

[Feedman]

Be nice if they would also put their picture in the local paper, if they were found guilty.

[slickhead slayer]

I don't see how this bill will help poaching!:D

I hope this bill makes it through!

Whoops, little typo.:o

[slickhead slayer]

Matlock..how old are you?;)
YOu missed my point. ANd you are wrong according to your last sentence, thats the whole point of this thread. I agree he would be found guilty of poaching under the current law but the new proposed bill would determine the fine for his poaching based on how big of a buck he poached.
I would think that a good attorney could argue the fact ....
with 2 poachers standing in front of the judge who both were just caught shooting a deer at nite with a light one killed 4pt. the other a 17" 10pt. you mean to tell me two different fines could be assessed based on the luck of the shooters.
Sounds like a lot court time to me...just make it across the board and be done with it..maybe not $10000 but a several thousand would suffice and make them pay it or spend some time in jail...no plea bargaining, no if ands or but ..it is what it is doe, buck, turkey or whatever. JMHO

There are different fines for speeding, the higher speed, the more you pay. No difference.
You steal something cheap, its a misdemeanor. You steal something over X amount of dollars, its a felony.
The legal system puts levels of fines in correlation with the amount of somethings value all the time.

[Multidigits]

I have over 13 years experience. I will bet you that I spend more time in court. PM me if you wish details. It's like any other proposed law. some like it, some do not. You do, I don't. I'm baseing my opposition through experience. If you can't imagine a Judge or prosecutor hesitating your experince in the court system has been narrowly defined. You system must be to the letter. And if that is the case you shouldn't need this new law. Best wishes.


Sounds like you have a larger problem with judges and prosecutor than you do for the law. I can't see how a better and stronger law will effect your problem one bit. For what it's worth, I've had problems with a prosecutor in Henderson Co. not following the law and taking action as well. Maybe a better law would have helped convince him some of us were serious about this stuff.

[huntr467]

There are different fines for speeding, the higher speed, the more you pay. No difference.
You steal something cheap, its a misdemeanor. You steal something over X amount of dollars, its a felony.
The legal system puts levels of fines in correlation with the amount of somethings value all the time.
I understand that. but those people knew how fast they were going and knew what they were stealing. I guy shooting a deer at nite with a light is gambling whether it is going to be a $500 13" 8pt or a $10000 16" 8pt. Thats the point I am trying to make.

[Feedman]

I guy shooting a deer at nite with a light is gambling whether it is going to be a $500 13" 8pt or a $10000 16" 8pt. Thats the point I am trying to make.

He has to decide if it is worth the gamble. Either way what he is doing is wrong. He should know that it is wrong. If he gets caught with a bigger deer than he thought, he will pay more.

[DW]

Sounds like you have a larger problem with judges and prosecutor than you do for the law. I can't see how a better and stronger law will effect your problem one bit. For what it's worth, I've had problems with a prosecutor in Henderson Co. not following the law and taking action as well. Maybe a better law would have helped convince him some of us were serious about this stuff.
Where did you come up with I have a problem with judges and prosecutors? I don't have the problem some have. Unless you've been involved in these type cases and seen the reactions, results, speculation is all you would have

[GameW]

Im very glad to see this law, now will it be inforced though? The game wardens can arrest and charge but its ultimately up to the judge to prosecute, or am i wrong? im very ignorant when it comes to the judicial system.

I wish it was 10,000 dollars for every "DEER" killed illegally, not just trophy's. We still have as many doe killed on our far as trophys. So this wont affect those low lifes.
You are exactly right. We cite and arrest then its out of our hands in court. Except for our testimony.Totally up to the Prosecutor and Judge. If the Prosecutor or the Judge doesn't think its worth the effort ( which a lot are of this opinion w/ fish and wildlife violations) then thats when the slaps on the wrist or worse nothing happens.

[GameW]

You watch too much TV. In court, the judge decides on the amount of evidence provided. Its not a murder case where you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. If their is reasonable evidence to convict you, a judge will convict you.
How is catching a guy at night using a spotlight, not MORE THAN sufficient evidence to convict him???? And it doesn't matter if he intended on poaching a "trophy" size buck or not. If found guilty of poaching, then he would get the fine for poaching a trophy deer.
stop watching Matlock man.
You might be surprised. It sometimes comes down to who the violator knows as to if it even goes to court.
I didn't know that things happened like they do until i started this job.

[GameW]

I have another question about this that maybe some of you attorneys can answer.
Say a guy is caught poaching at nite with a light and he shoots a buck that falls under this category of "trophy".
How are they going to prove that he did it intentionally? That he could actually knew what he was shooting at 150yds in the dark using a light?
Then they will fall back on previous cases that were prosecuted under lesser penalties. He can just say he did not know it was a 17" 10 pt. he was just shooting a deer. What are the odds of getting a conviction?
Maybe I watch to much tv but it seems it will be very difficult to prove the intent was there to shoot a trophy animal.

I understand where Mikeky is coming from and maybe this bill would apply to those "professional" poachers and I am sure there are some of them around. But in reality, the majority of the poaching is not done by "professional" poachers.
And as I stated in a previous post, Buckfever thinks its going to curb the people who shoot 2 bucks. I dont see how...their second buck would have to be of trophy standards to apply. They could still shoot a small 8 or 6 and not face as severe penalty as the regular weekend nite hunters who lucked up and shot a set of eyes in a field that yielded 150"s of horn.
It shouldn't matter if he was just shooting a deer. If the deer he shot was considered a trophy then i would go ahead and charge for that. The same applies to Drinking and driving and you kill someone. Should saying that you were just Drinking and driving and didn't mean to hit the other car and kill the people in it. Same thing applies to this.

[MikeKy]

You are exactly right. We cite and arrest then its out of our hands in court. Except for our testimony.Totally up to the Prosecutor and Judge. If the Prosecutor or the Judge doesn't think its worth the effort ( which a lot are of this opinion w/ fish and wildlife violations) then thats when the slaps on the wrist or worse nothing happens.

GameW, do you see this bill as a way to actually prosecute violaters when the prosecuter files the ticket away or the violater is fined $10 or so? Looks to me like if you guys catch them and the county attorney or judge really does nothing to them then KDFWR can file a civil suit that would take the county attorney/judge out of the picture. Also, do you think the actual purpose of this bill is to stop the black market in wildlife? Thanks.

[huntr467]

It shouldn't matter if he was just shooting a deer. If the deer he shot was considered a trophy then i would go ahead and charge for that. The same applies to Drinking and driving and you kill someone. Should saying that you were just Drinking and driving and didn't mean to hit the other car and kill the people in it. Same thing applies to this.
once again the comparison is not the same...there is a fine for drinking and driving without incident which would compare to shining deer at nite with a gun in the vehicle...both crimes both illegal.
Add in an accident different fine....actual shoot a deer different fine.
All I am trying to say is that a good lawyer could argue the fact that the shooter did not know he was shooting a trophy buck at nite with a light therefore how can you sue him for civil damages and not the guy who shot a lesser buck. I am all for the fines to be as high as the law can make it but for all poachers and no options period....kinda like dui laws.

[redneck1377]

why wasn't a poll included with this post so we could vote on this law
what are the chance of a man or woman that were spotlight getting shot, do human eyes reflect the light similar to a deer eyes

[buckfever]

All I am trying to say is that a good lawyer could argue the fact that the shooter did not know he was shooting a trophy buck at nite with a light therefore how can you sue him for civil damages and not the guy who shot a lesser buck.

No, a "good lawyer" could not argue that point, and no "good lawyer" would try. The size of the deer that the poacher intended to shoot is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the deer met the threshold that triggered the penalty. The poacher can say he thought it was a 4 ptr all he wants, but that's kind of like the druggie saying that the increased penalty for possessing more than an ounce of dope shouldn't apply to him b/c he didn't have a scale to figure out how much he had.

Regardless, that evidence would be inadmissible anyhow. The prosecutor would either file a mtn in limine or raised an objection to preclude the court from even considering it. If the judge allowed it, it would be clear error. The prosecutor would appeal it and win on appeal.

Some of this stuff is almost unbelievable. . . . Does anybody really think that a judge is going to let a poacher walk on a conviction, b/c he wants his vote in the next election? I sure haven't seen the place in KY where judges pin their re-election campaigns on befriending those that break our criminal laws.

[trader rob]

No, a "good lawyer" could not argue that point, and no "good lawyer" would try. The size of the deer that the poacher intended to shoot is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the deer met the threshold that triggered the penalty. The poacher can say he thought it was a 4 ptr all he wants, but that's kind of like the druggie saying that the increased penalty for possessing more than an ounce of dope shouldn't apply to him b/c he didn't have a scale to figure out how much he had.

Regardless, that evidence would be inadmissible anyhow. The prosecutor would either file a mtn in limine or raised an objection to preclude the court from even considering it. If the judge allowed it, it would be clear error. The prosecutor would appeal it and win on appeal.

Some of this stuff is almost unbelievable. . . . Does anybody really think that a judge is going to let a poacher walk on a conviction, b/c he wants his vote in the next election? I sure haven't seen the place in KY where judges pin their re-election campaigns on befriending those that break our criminal laws.

if you have never seen that in ky. then you have never been to may places or you are terribly naive. it is common practice for lawyers and prosecutors to trade off cases on the courthouse steps before court. you won't get many co. attorneys to push for 10,000 dollar fines in a simple poaching case, involving a local person. and on top of all that you say the judge can do, ever hear of a jury trial? the problem you have is that you have your mind set and no one will change it, and yet you can't bare to let someone else have their opinion. not to be demeaning, but that is how it looks.

[newshooter05]

u people can argue all u want and it don't mean crap. the truth is that this law will help. how much may depend on the courts but how many times do u think a fine of this much will have to be imposed before folks get the idea that maybe we best not shoot any deer illegally. what some of u say may be true part of the time but heck if it causes one story to make the paper any where in ky then it is worth while and maybe judges will use it just cause they can and it makes them feel powerful.heck my daddy used to say anything is better then nothing.

people say that it is a feel good law , well even a feel good law is worth somthing . stop whinning about the shape the courts are in and use that energy to push this thru.

if i were a poacher ,part time or full time, and a story was in the paper anywhere id think real hard before i poached again and id try real hard to talk my friends into stopping.will it stop poaching , heck no but it will slow it some and it may make a differance . my 2cent worth and worth every cent.
david

[slickhead slayer]

You might be surprised. It sometimes comes down to who the violator knows as to if it even goes to court.
I didn't know that things happened like they do until i started this job.


I said that catching a guy in the act of spotlighting was sufficient evidence to convict him. I am sure there are cases where it doesn't go to
court becuase someone knows someone. But that still doesn't change the fact that in normal circumstances, its more than enough evidence to convict someone of spotlighting.

[slickhead slayer]

once again the comparison is not the same...there is a fine for drinking and driving without incident which would compare to shining deer at nite with a gun in the vehicle...both crimes both illegal.
.

Thats correct, there is a standard fine for DUI. But, if while your driving under the influence, you kill someone, that "standard" fine goes to manslaughter. Despite the fact that the person driving under the influence didn't intend on killing anyone.

[maxcam]

once again the comparison is not the same...there is a fine for drinking and driving without incident which would compare to shining deer at nite with a gun in the vehicle...both crimes both illegal.
Add in an accident different fine....actual shoot a deer different fine.
All I am trying to say is that a good lawyer could argue the fact that the shooter did not know he was shooting a trophy buck at nite with a light therefore how can you sue him for civil damages and not the guy who shot a lesser buck. I am all for the fines to be as high as the law can make it but for all poachers and no options period....kinda like dui laws.

Ive got a suggestion......If you think it wise to split hairs....Why not try your luck and get back to us and see how it works for you!

[huntr467]

Ive got a suggestion......If you think it wise to split hairs....Why not try your luck and get back to us and see how it works for you!
Thats what lawyers do they split hairs. You guys need to read this entire thread and all my posts. I am all for the bill I just think it should be across the board then there would be no argument at all in any courtroom. Make fines and penalties mandatory period so no good ol boy judge can play favorites.

[DOGY]

Well it"s about time somebody started to listen, how long have we waited? Finaly some good news.:) I guess all good things come to us who waits and chews the ears off the reps.

[buckfever]

if you have never seen that in ky. then you have never been to may places or you are terribly naive. it is common practice for lawyers and prosecutors to trade off cases on the courthouse steps before court. you won't get many co. attorneys to push for 10,000 dollar fines in a simple poaching case, involving a local person. and on top of all that you say the judge can do, ever hear of a jury trial? the problem you have is that you have your mind set and no one will change it, and yet you can't bare to let someone else have their opinion. not to be demeaning, but that is how it looks.

I'd venture to say that I've been to more places and more courtrooms that you have, and I've yet to have anyone tell me I'm naive. But who knows, maybe I am. ;)

It's "common practice" for your local prosecutor to "trade off" cases with opposing defense attorneys???? REALLY? Is this like when we were kids and trading cards of our favorite baseball players with our buddies? Your county attorney agrees to drop the charges against "Bobby Burglar" for his crimes, so long as Johnny Cochran (the local defense attorney) agrees to throw his other client "Alfie Arsonist" under the prosecutorial bus? If this is really happening on a regular basis, you might want to think about filing a complaints with the KY Bar Ass'n and the FBI. Not only would everyone be disbarred, they'd be looking at a lot of time in federal pen.

Yes, I have heard of a "jury trial", but you clearly don't how the legal system works if you don't have an understanding of a judge's roll. You also don't understand how this bill (as written) would work in a court of law. The county attorney would only seek a prosecution on the underlying poaching charge in the criminal case, and whether the animal is a "trophy" or not is irrelevant to that prosecution. After the criminal conviction, the prosecutor's involvement ends. KDFWR would file a different civil suit to collect the $10K money, and KDFWR would have the burden of proving that the animal met the thresholds triggering the civil penalty. And KDFWR would not be using the local county attorney to litigate that issue.

At bottom, what you're trying to claim is that this bill would effectively increase poaching, b/c the county attorneys wouldn't prosecute any poachers b/c of the possibility of that $10K fine floating out there. That is nonsense.

I don't have problems with people voicing opinions different than my own. If you're against this bill, that's fine as your prerogative. I don't care, but when you try to convince other people that it's a "bad" bill based on outrageous theories about prosecutors/judges being on the take or in the pockets of local poachers/defense attorneys, expect people to call BS and question the logic. :(

[maxcam]

That is right Couselor you tell em how it is......

[slowjimbo]

I know judges always carp and bellyache when the legislature passes new laws with mandatory sentences/fines (e.g. Three Strikes legislation). But why cannot a bill that proposes a single mandatory fine ($10,000 for a "trophy buck" in this case) be passed. Take the civil suit wording out and have the monies go to a fund specifically for use by KDFWR. As a result, these monies could be used to hire more COs. Not sure if this could be done legally. Are the monies generated by state traffic violation infractions placed into the state's general fund or does KSP have controll over these fines? If KSP retains controll over the funds, couldn't that be used as precedent?

[trader rob]

I'd venture to say that I've been to more places and more courtrooms that you have, and I've yet to have anyone tell me I'm naive. But who knows, maybe I am. ;)

It's "common practice" for your local prosecutor to "trade off" cases with opposing defense attorneys???? REALLY? Is this like when we were kids and trading cards of our favorite baseball players with our buddies? Your county attorney agrees to drop the charges against "Bobby Burglar" for his crimes, so long as Johnny Cochran (the local defense attorney) agrees to throw his other client "Alfie Arsonist" under the prosecutorial bus? If this is really happening on a regular basis, you might want to think about filing a complaints with the KY Bar Ass'n and the FBI. Not only would everyone be disbarred, they'd be looking at a lot of time in federal pen.

Yes, I have heard of a "jury trial", but you clearly don't how the legal system works if you don't have an understanding of a judge's roll. You also don't understand how this bill (as written) would work in a court of law. The county attorney would only seek a prosecution on the underlying poaching charge in the criminal case, and whether the animal is a "trophy" or not is irrelevant to that prosecution. After the criminal conviction, the prosecutor's involvement ends. KDFWR would file a different civil suit to collect the $10K money, and KDFWR would have the burden of proving that the animal met the thresholds triggering the civil penalty. And KDFWR would not be using the local county attorney to litigate that issue.

At bottom, what you're trying to claim is that this bill would effectively increase poaching, b/c the county attorneys wouldn't prosecute any poachers b/c of the possibility of that $10K fine floating out there. That is nonsense.

I don't have problems with people voicing opinions different than my own. If you're against this bill, that's fine as your prerogative. I don't care, but when you try to convince other people that it's a "bad" bill based on outrageous theories about prosecutors/judges being on the take or in the pockets of local poachers/defense attorneys, expect people to call BS and question the logic. :(

on the first count, i would say you are wrong.

on the second count i didn't say it was rampant. i said it happens and most lawyers are not totally stupid, so wouldn't be an easy one to prove. are you saying it does not happen?
i wouldn't file anything, i may be in a position to need this service one day. it could help as well as hurt.

if you are familiar with a jury trial than you realize that not guilty means no conviction.

i don't say it will increase poaching. i don't think it will have much of an impact at all. i am only aware of a handful of commercial poaching rings broken up in the last 30 years.

i didn't say i was against it. i do think that we have enough laws now that don't get enforced.

as i said before, i suspect you have a problem with opposing views. and you don't have any idea what my qualifications might be. but thanks for pointing it out.

[Bray]

It has become very clear there are a lot of ignorant people who base their reasoning on bull crap and hearsay. Half of the arguements I have heard against this bill have are so stupid and so ignorant that those who have given them shouldn't be allowed to vote much less reproduce.

If you honestly believe that this bill is a BAD thing then you NEVER have the right to complain about poaching, the deer heard, or the job by the KDFWR. "Sportsmen" like yourselves are useless belly achers.

There are some in life who go through life negatively and only see the bad. When legislators try to make a difference you CRY about it. When they don't you CRY about it. If you aren't part of the solution well, I think we all know the rest....

I wash my hands of this, BF thanks for presenting this and trying to help educate. You have offered great insight and I wish you good luck with this. I hope for the sake of our wildlife this is passed.

[tex]

I support the bill.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-15-drilling-poaching_x.htm

I also support taking the vehicle and weapon involved, and making persons convicted of poaching do community service at Hunter's Education classes. They could tell the stories of the failures, and hopefully impress some young kids.

I think that New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Kansas and Washington do something similar to this; they don't have these mythical what-ifs. Caught? Convicted? Then you pay restitution to the state for taking its resources.

I also believe Pa, and New York, in additon to Ohio are planning similar bills, in these respective sessions.

[tenntucky]

You are exactly right. We cite and arrest then its out of our hands in court. Except for our testimony.Totally up to the Prosecutor and Judge. If the Prosecutor or the Judge doesn't think its worth the effort ( which a lot are of this opinion w/ fish and wildlife violations) then thats when the slaps on the wrist or worse nothing happens.
Is that county prosecutors and judges?? It seems to me that a state agency citations should be prosecuted on a state level and get rid of some of the good ol boy justice. Here in Trigg county we cant even get the local law to respond to calls for help against trespass and illigal hunting. F&W I believe tries but are spread to thin to be able to get to every call.

[GSPonGrouse]

I support the bill and think that the possibility of a 10,000 (thats allot of 0's) dollar fine will stop a few people short of pulling the trigger. WIN, WIN.
BF, you can lead a horse to water...........
Thanks for your incite.

[Labrador]

My $0.02:

Fines up to $10,000 does not mean everyone tried with the civil suit will seek the maximum. It just gives the department a better deterent and the option to increase penalties. I doubt $10,000 would be sought by the department on a 16" eight pointer shot across the fence by an inexperienced "hunter" under all other legal methods (i.e. wearing hunter orange, has hunter safety card, has license and tags, during modern firearm season, proper firearm, etc.). What put this "hunter" in violation of the proposed law was (hypothetically) shooting an otherwise legal animal on property to which he/she did not have permission to hunt.

The proposed bill increases the maximum from $400 to $10,000. I believe it is intended to be utilized on the ones that: shoot deer at night, on numerous properties without permission, without licenses, out of season, etc.

As best I can recall from my under-funded education, county attorneys do not lead the civil cases. Each side represents themselves: KDFWR hires their lawyer; (alleged) violator hires his/her own. Civil cases do not require guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, just a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% for those that were going to Google "preponderance"). Guilty in a criminal case constitutes preponderance in a civil suit in nearly every case.

BF brought information to the forum about a bill that could dramatically effect the future of our sport, and some of you have chosen to spin it from a negative perspective. I'll be supporting it. Thanks BF for being my eyes and ears on this one; without your input, I'd have never known about the bill. Don't let the naysayers discourage your efforts. I, for one, appreciate them.

[slickhead slayer]

Any update on this bill? Did it make it out of committee? Any opposition?

[elkguy]

It got beat in Committee. The argument against it was that it would "hurt the little man and some poor old boys that made a mistake".

[buckfever]

It got beat in Committee. The argument against it was that it would "hurt the little man and some poor old boys that made a mistake".

David - Who argued against it?

I wonder if the wording of the bill led to its demise?? Given the problems with it and the fact that it wasn't amended, I'm actually glad it didn't hit the floor.

I never got a response from the sponsor (Osborne), so he may have seen the handwriting on the wall. I'm actually disappointed that my own senator wouldn't return my call. :mad:

Hopefully, we can generate enough support to push similar legislation in the future.