Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Welcome to KentuckyHunting.net!' started by Chrispbacon, Oct 13, 2017.
Is this the reason why Bevins has given up his John Deere dealership ??
I don't know anything about his business, but for some reason I was under the impression he might have changed the name, or may have sold all or part of his businesses to a larger dealer. You don't lose a dealership over a scrap with a corrupt wildlife department.
Ive been following this story for awhile, I have a question.
Had it not been for the placed cracked corn, was the Hunter hunting legally per existing laws, not someone's opinion?
If they were outside the required distance from a dwelling they were totally legal.
I don't believe they were cited or asked to stop hunting in that spot. But I don't know for sure.
They and other credible people believe they were hunting legally.
I don't think there is a hard answer at this point that is not an opinion of the LEO or homeowner.
I would say they can hunt legally if there is no way that shot would enter the homeowners property.
I just don't see how that is possible in a real life hunting scenario in that spot. I've been down that creek. Maybe, just seems unlikely.
I know I have been guilty of this and have been made to move, and have also been tolerated. It's up to the landowner if there is an intrusion.
There is a history of access disputes on this creek. It's a beautiful creek. You can see it from different roads and people want to fish, kayak, canoe, wade and often cross private property to do so. At the same time, the area is growing up around the creek.
The OP has stated he intends to hunt it whenever he wants. I assume he officially either will or wont be allowed at some point. Maybe this has been adjudicated but I haven't seen hard answers to that question yet.
This thread interests me simply over the property rights question. I have tried to press the issue of the rights of neighboring property owners because I don't see it as a right to hunt issue. You have the right to hunt until your shot impacts a neighbors property. Not the noise, not the irritation, not being anti duck killing-simply whether or not your shot goes into someone elses property. If it does, I cannot see how that wouldn't be the deciding factor.
Edit-I agree that the laws are written regarding distance relative to a dwelling. But this is not vacant farmland. It is a subdivision. If my kids play in the yard, or my dog or horse is out there, or if I don't want my outbuilding or property peppered, why is the dwelling the deciding term?
It would be in my opinion that a responsible hunter would make shots that he knows will not hit others property . A hunter need to know where his shot will land or go . Whether it is from a shotgun that is almost harmless at a distance (could put out a eye )or a shot from a high powered rifle that can go through something and keep on traveling .
But baiting a area is just wrong to keep hunters away .
So, using the information we have, and it's probably no where all the information we need, would these be considered true statements?
1) The Hunter was on "Public" property.
2) The Hunter was more than the minimum distance from a dwelling.
3) The Hunter was not cited for any violation from KDFW.
Lets say the guys were out on the creek duck hunting. Landowner comes out in his backyard an starts to shoot some trap. As landowner is busting clay pigeons on his property, the suck hunters start raising he'll about the shot hitting around them.
Landowner tells them to pound sand he is on his property an not breaking any laws.
Now what do the suck hunters do?
I find some people VERY impulsive, and tunnel visioned when hunting and game flushes.
I had shot hit my boot once in the middle of an open field rabbit hunting when a hunter fired at a rabbit between us.
I was once almost killed as a cone of shot fired from no more than 10-12 yards away missed my head by only feet while rabbit hunting a few years later.
I had a guy shoot over my head while grouse hunting once.
Yes, 2 state and 2 federal CO's stated the distance and direction of the hunters was safe. They had permission and had hunted this spot several times over the years
Yet. Bevin tried to be smart a$$ and use the corn. But if he cleans up corn and waits for said hunter to start blasting again.Proof of shot on private property is a whole different charge. Bottom line is this is another dagger in how the public view hunting. Buford ,I guess you are right "victim society at work"
The issue with all of this isn't the location of the hunters. The issue is a sitting commissioner placing bait on a property he didn't own to stop legal hunters. As bad as that was, it pales in comparison to what has happened since. Good CO's who refused to be a part of a cover up were punished or pushed from the department, evidence was destroyed, laws were broken by those sworn to enforce them.
The Commission has a long record of treating our state as their own private fish and game club. When called on it, they used state law enforcement to hassle legal hunters, then punished CO's for not going along with it. Time for a change. Top down, flush the corruption.
I agree 100% with this.....
I 2nd that
Yeah it is.
It may have been obfuscated by Bevin's dumb move to bait the easement, and the KDFWR's dumb move to suppress the investigation, and some people wanting to support their friends positions, but it's still about the location of the hunters.