Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

More on Nugent

24

Replies

  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,165 Senior Member
    Fair enough. That being said, if someone's spending multiple thousands of dollars on a hunt... shouldn't they have the wherewithal to make sure they know the game laws? I mean, folks buy gear to go on these hunts (boots, rainwear, pack,s) then sometimes a special rifle (or two,) get in shape to do the hunt (or not,) and worry about making sure their accommodations are up to snuff, but can't take the time to make sure they've reviewed the applicable game laws? I know the guide is the one out there to make sure the law is being followed, but to me it seems unfair to the guide to hold him responsible for the hunter not doing their due diligence. If we claim that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," why do folks hunting with a guide seem to get a bye?

    Sorry, this is just something that irritates me. If folks believe in personal responsibility, it should extend to all areas of life. Including recreation. And if you're doing a TV show where you're hunting, well, you're making money on it, too.

    Ted is making thousands to do the hunt. The guide pays to get on TV. Ted doesn't buy gear. They either pay him to endorse/advertise it, or give it to him for free hoping for some free advertising.

    Lets say Ted's show is 15 episodes. That is 15 hunts. If a lawyer had 15 trails to do in 12 weeks, do you think he would look up all of the relevant case law himself? He has a paralegal do it. I am sure Ted doesn't book the hunts, the flights, the gear, the accomodations. or anything else. He shows up and that's about it.....
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    We don't know all the facts of this stuff. For me, Ted is on our side. He may or may not have screwed up, but you can bet if he did the antis blew it all out of proportion. I'm saving my comments until I know more and at this point I don't know Qua-Qua.

    As far as what he said about Obama being re-elected, in my opinion he wasn't threatening anyone. He was making a statement that he feels he's going to be threatened if Obama does win re-election. And what you will see if he is re-elected is the Chicago political machine unhornessed. That ain't good.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    Ted is making thousands to do the hunt. The guide pays to get on TV. Ted doesn't buy gear. They either pay him to endorse/advertise it, or give it to him for free hoping for some free advertising.

    Lets say Ted's show is 15 episodes. That is 15 hunts. If a lawyer had 15 trails to do in 12 weeks, do you think he would look up all of the relevant case law himself? He has a paralegal do it. I am sure Ted doesn't book the hunts, the flights, the gear, the accomodations. or anything else. He shows up and that's about it.....

    But it's not just Ted who uses the "guide's responsibility" line. It's most of the guys who go on these hunts. When they're busted, folks say, "well, the guide didn't tell him...." That's crap. If you have enough time to get all the stuff ready, you should take enough time to find out the game laws. Besides, how long does it really take to review a game law book? A few hours? Is someone's time so precious they can't do that and potentially save themselves a few hundred or a few grand? Really?

    BTW, even though a lawyer would have a paralegal look up the stuff, he doesn't let the paralegal present the case. He looks a the information, processes it, and learns it for his own presentation. He's having someone look up the relevant case law, hand him a pamphlet or stack of papers, reads it, then understands it for the trial. Kinda like Ted or someone else could have someone look up the game laws, hand it to them, then the hunter reads the laws and understands them for the trial. Remember Ted's "hunting over bait" problem? A quick review of game laws of CA would have told him that a chemical attractant was not allowed. Heck, he and the shows probably have (or should have) lawyers to tell them what they can and can't use!

    By the way, anyone notice Ted doesn't get in trouble unless he shows the tape? Maybe they should have review of those things before they get aired or sold.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Breamie,
    You've injected some sanity in this discussion.
    Forget about all the political crap.
    This guy violated a game law. I don't care if it was new or old. He should have been aware of it and conducted himself to act within the law.
    Isn't that what we would all teach our kids to do??
    Jim

    "Forget about all the political crap?"

    Give me a break - you inject political crap into every discussion you participate in. Like all screeching liberals, you think you get to pick the opposition's role models, and you pick them based on how easy they are to tear down. I could pick almost any celebrity and find breeches in their conduct that should disqualify them from taking leadership stances...if I actually cared. The one thing that they all have in common is that they always tend to divert the conversation away from any reasonable discussion or analysis of facts.

    Sensible people do not pay much attention to celebrities that put themselves up as spokesmen for whatever issue that they think might keep attention focused on them. The people who pay the most attention to celebrity endorsements are political hacks that are trying to sway those whose attention spans are too short to think through any issue. Show me a hero worshipper, and I'll show you an idiot.

    Besides, if you really are a hunter, which I seriously doubt, you would know how easy it is to run afoul of game laws, without it being a premeditated assault on the justice system. I'm not defending Ted Nugent, because I don't care what he does or thinks. But you probably should not expect to troll through a gun forum with the phony moral outrage that you always seem to have ready to go on any subject, and pick up any support for whatever it is that you're selling.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    I'm still wondering why this discussion is on the Second Amendment/Political sub-forum, because there's been little done to discuss politics...

    That being said, I can give Ted a bye on this one, and a pretty big one. First, the law was kind of new. Second, the game units method of calculating a bag limit is just weird. Probably good when you look at it from the perspective that it gives area-specific management, but it's weird. Your dead bear in one game unit counts against the bag limit in another area. Fine. But if you kill a bear in Unit 9, where the bag limit is 3, well you can't harvest a bear in Unit 6 where the limit is 1. However, you can harvest your bear in Unit 6, then go on and bag 2 in Unit 9. Again, weird.

    This is where it gets odd: the legal definition of "wounding" an animal is not in the game pamphlet. It's in the statutes, but not in the pamphlet most folks would reference. You'd need to pull up the actual game laws on the Internet, or get a written copy of the statues. Kinda hard to hold someone to a rule that is a bit hard to find. But on the other hand, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Now the motive of the law is not a bad one. It was written so that if you seriously injure an animal such that it will most likely die, it'll count against your bag limit. That's an ethical behavior, one I've taken. However, I'm not one to regulate ethics. The problem with the law is that it doesn't allow for grievous injury, it just says "blood or evidence of wounding." In other words, if you nick the animal it goes against you. The law is written such that it violates the original intent, most likely to make enforcement easier. But, it's not a well-written law.

    That being said, I still have a hard time with the idea that the guide is to be responsible for the hunter following the game laws. Hunting is, at its essence, a personal thing. The hunter decides which animal they want to take, the hunter takes the shot, the hunter takes the remains of the animal home. The hunter should be responsible for knowing and violating the laws. It would have been hard for Nugent to know this law, but his other law violations are ones that I still do have a problem with, because a quick look at the game laws would have told him if or if not what he was doing was legal

    Here's a link to an article on Nugent's violation: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/why-ted-nugent-pleading-guilty-alaska-bear-case?page=0,0
    Overkill is underrated.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    That's a good article, Bream. Gives a good explanation of how the law he broke is pretty obscure. The part about the law he broke not being clearly spelled out on the game law pamphlet and most Alaska residents not even being aware of it is telling. Writing a law not clearly spelled out in the regulations in the pamphlet smacks of entrapment at worst, or idiocy on the other end of the spectrum. He could have been charged with a felony under the Lacy Act if he hadn't taken the plea bargain, and being convicted of a felony would have ended his firearms ownership.

    You being in FL, you are probably aware of how easy it is to violate the Lacy Act when fishermen go to the Bahamas fishing. Their regs are not the same as here, and when they return to the U.S. in their boat and are stopped, they can get in trouble even though they are totally legal. And then there's the moronic differences between fishing in state and federal waters, and the stupid stuff you have to do to remain legal. If you fish in federal waters, and the bag limit is higher in fed waters than state waters, you are not allowed to stop in state waters to fish on the way to the dock, or you will be cited for exceeding the state bag limit.

    Here is the Lacy Act as passed by Congress. It does NOT contain the implementing regulations.

    http://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/Lacey.pdf

    If you wish to find the ACTUAL REGULATIONS, good luck. They are buried in the CFRs, Endangered Species Act, and several other federal Acts, not to mention the Federal Fish and Wildlife service. To believe for one minute that anyone engaged in hunting or fishing in the U.S. could be cognizant of all the rules and regulations involved, not to mention the obscure state laws is ludicrous on its face.

    When the laws become so convoluted and difficult to understand that one cannot hope to grasp them, then they are not laws at all. They are landmines set by the regulators to blow up those that cannot truly be expected to be aware of them all, nor be expected to be able to scrupulously follow them. Anybody who doubts this should just walk up to a COMPLETE SET of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and wade in trying to find ALL the regulations pertaining to ONE SUBJECT, and then follow ALL the breadcrumbs to all the implementing laws, rules, statutes, and regulations. Anyone who says that they can are either ignorant of the scope of the task, or have a CRAY supercomputer for a brain, or is a teller of falsehoods.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,165 Senior Member
    But it's not just Ted who uses the "guide's responsibility" line. It's most of the guys who go on these hunts. When they're busted, folks say, "well, the guide didn't tell him...." That's crap. If you have enough time to get all the stuff ready, you should take enough time to find out the game laws. Besides, how long does it really take to review a game law book? A few hours? Is someone's time so precious they can't do that and potentially save themselves a few hundred or a few grand? Really?
    .

    That is also the main reason people rich enough to use an expensive guide, use an expensive guide. They are very busy making that $$$ and if they want to use three days of precious vacation to go on a hunt, they don't want to plan or have the time to plan it. That is what the guide is counting on to make a living
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    I can understand having someone else plan the hunt. I wouldn't do it, but that's me. I like the planning. What I don't like is how folks seem to put the burden of responsibility on the guide. I don't understand that, because in most, if not all other forms of activity it's the one doing the act who's held responsible for knowing rules and regulations.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • tv_racin_fantv_racin_fan Senior Member Posts: 660 Senior Member
    Beam I would give Ted a pass on this one same as you did. Same reason you did as well. Most hunters I know of do not know the laws because they do the same thing I do. They grab the pamphlet and go by what it says is the law. Sad thing is there are things not explained in the pamphlet and then there are things that are just flat wrong in them some times.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    But a guide is what it is. The word guide means more than just somebody that takes you to the game. He assumes that sort of responsibility. A guy like Nuge that hunts all over the country doing shows every week would spend a tremdous amount of time studying law if he didn't have a guide he could rely on. If this was Nuge's only hunt of the year or the hunt of a lifetime I might see it as being a bit more negligent, but even then, the guide hunts that area in that state several times a year and it IS his responsibility when he takes your money to try to keep you out of trouble. I figure guiding you through the laws is just an extension of his duties that he's paid for. And then on top of that, everyone, even an expensive guide, can come short of the glory on occasion. After all, they are human.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,165 Senior Member
    I can understand having someone else plan the hunt. I wouldn't do it, but that's me. I like the planning. What I don't like is how folks seem to put the burden of responsibility on the guide. I don't understand that, because in most, if not all other forms of activity it's the one doing the act who's held responsible for knowing rules and regulations.

    I don't agree. Once the guide accepts compensation, that makes it a business transaction. I would consider him to be responsible for the animals harvest. Once you take a persons money for a job, you are responsible to for that job.

    I can see where someone ( I wouldn't personally) would expect/ count on them to know the laws in that state. It is hard to keep up with the laws here in OHio, and ours are pretty darn simpe compared to other states.
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Mister,
    I've been hunting for over 60 years, ethically.
    Isn't that what it's all about?
    You amaze me, This washed up Bozo espouses extremist stuff like if "Obama gets elected, I'll be dead or in jail" and you eat it up. He knew you'd love it when he said it.
    Then he leaves a bear in the woods and shoots another with a rifle while using the same archery license and you say "Ho Hum.
    Simply amazing.

    You have been hunting 60 years ? So you are close to 70 or 80 ? how can that be ? at your age you have seen it all then, and old Ted gets your shorts in a knot ???
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    I don't agree. Once the guide accepts compensation, that makes it a business transaction. I would consider him to be responsible for the animals harvest. Once you take a persons money for a job, you are responsible to for that job.

    I can see where someone ( I wouldn't personally) would expect/ count on them to know the laws in that state. It is hard to keep up with the laws here in OHio, and ours are pretty darn simpe compared to other states.

    Then by the same token, if a man hires a fishing guide to take him to catch a trophy largemouth bass and the sport keeps more than the bag limit, or more than the allowed number over a size slot, who is responsible? The guide or the fellow who didn't read that the bag limit is 5 fish over 16", only one of which may be over 22"?

    I just don't buy the "not enough time" argument. If you're working for a hunting show, yes, you can hire someone else to look up the regs, but why can't you take the time to read the applicable regs? I thought conservatives were about personal responsibility...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    I guess the solution is to hire a local lawyer in the area you intend to hunt, who is also very well versed in the litigation of the game laws, to look up all applicable laws, both the obvious and the obscure, in both the state and federal jurisdiction, and have him write up a synopsis, or brief, if you will, specifying, in detail, the rules and all caveats specific to the different hunting and/or fishing regions. Said synopsis or brief to signed by at least three judges as being a true and accurate briefing on all the applicable laws and statutes, and be notarized and countersigned by the state attorney general. And if that doesn't work, and they missed some minutiae, and you run afoul of the law anyway, then sue the lot of them! Getting to the point that you can't break wind in public without getting cited for some stupid local law, or the Feds come gunning for you for air pollution.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Or go hunting with a Judge !!!!
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    I can see why bream likes to do his own planning, because he is given to detail, if it is under a rock he will find it. I appreciate the time you spent on explaining how weird their game laws are.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    It's not so much that I like to do the planning, but that I'm not holding someone else responsible if I mess up. Maybe it's how I was raised, but my Dad taught me to always know the regs when I hunted. He showed my brother and I that by always putting a copy of the game laws in our hunting buckets for dove or our shotgun cases, and making sure we had a copy of the fishing regs. Later, it was our responsibility to make sure we had such things, but he'd check, occasionally.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Uncle BSUncle BS Member Posts: 380 Member
    TedNugent.jpg
    cpj wrote: »
    Wow. I never knew I enjoyed grilled foreskin.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    :spittingcoffee:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    Maybe all these complicated and convoluted laws are actually designed that way so they can screw you if they feel like it. Sure seems like it in this case. Laws written in such a manner that is not understandable by the average person, is not worthy of being a law in the first place.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,165 Senior Member
    Then by the same token, if a man hires a fishing guide to take him to catch a trophy largemouth bass and the sport keeps more than the bag limit, or more than the allowed number over a size slot, who is responsible? The guide or the fellow who didn't read that the bag limit is 5 fish over 16", only one of which may be over 22"?

    If the guide recieved compensation for the fishing trip, then he is responsible. Unless you can prove the angler knew the law and broke it willingly.
    I just don't buy the "not enough time" argument. If you're working for a hunting show, yes, you can hire someone else to look up the regs, but why can't you take the time to read the applicable regs? I thought conservatives were about personal responsibility...

    If you are just taking one or two trips a season, then looking up the regs should be no problem. Taking 12 trips in a couple months to 10 different states with an entourage of people??? You aren't going to look them all up, when you are paying someone to to it for you.... Ted is worried about how his products (and himself) look on camera, not what is legal. He is paying someone who is supposed to know..

    Ted is an entire corporation with lines of hunting gear, TV show, and he still does concerts. I imagine he is a lot busier than the average attention whore...
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    I guess we'll just have to see this differently. I still think that Ted can get someone else to look up the regs for him, then give them to him. Shouldn't take too long to read this.

    Much in the same vein, if a heart surgeon wants to hunt Colorado for elk, he could have someone look up the regs for him and then review them. But if, after the hunt is over, the surgeon has killed an illegal animal, I don't see how he can say "well, my guide didn't tell me..." and use that as an excuse for violating basic game laws.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,165 Senior Member
    I guess we'll just have to see this differently. I still think that Ted can get someone else to look up the regs for him, then give them to him. Shouldn't take too long to read this.

    Much in the same vein, if a heart surgeon wants to hunt Colorado for elk, he could have someone look up the regs for him and then review them. But if, after the hunt is over, the surgeon has killed an illegal animal, I don't see how he can say "well, my guide didn't tell me..." and use that as an excuse for violating basic game laws.

    Not only did the surgeon have someone look up the regs for him, he paid that person a lot of money to do it for him.......... the guide.
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • Uncle BSUncle BS Member Posts: 380 Member
    I guess we'll just have to see this differently. I still think that Ted can get someone else to look up the regs for him, then give them to him. Shouldn't take too long to read this.

    Much in the same vein, if a heart surgeon wants to hunt Colorado for elk, he could have someone look up the regs for him and then review them. But if, after the hunt is over, the surgeon has killed an illegal animal, I don't see how he can say "well, my guide didn't tell me..." and use that as an excuse for violating basic game laws.

    And your heart surgeon will have to pay a fine, just like Ted did. But when they ask him why he didn't know better, he'll say that he trusted the wrong people.


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?r0f5vv
    cpj wrote: »
    Wow. I never knew I enjoyed grilled foreskin.
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,165 Senior Member
    Don't guides have to be licensed? If you pay a licensed guide good money for a hunt, why would you not trust their knowledge of the game laws. Wouldn't that be a part of getting a guide license???
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    Yes, but what I'm saying is that even though you hire someone, you should not use lack of knowledge and a reliance on the professional as an excuse for your violating the laws. Again, ignorance of the law is not supposed to be an excuse.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,165 Senior Member
    Yes, but what I'm saying is that even though you hire someone, you should not use lack of knowledge and a reliance on the professional as an excuse for your violating the laws. Again, ignorance of the law is not supposed to be an excuse.

    Reliance on the professional is why you are giving them money.

    I wouldn't rely on them personally, because (from lots of experience) I rely on people in general to be incompetent in their jobs.

    Once you take money from someone for your skill or knowledge, you should be responsible. That isn't the way the law sees it though. If you give a contractor money to build an addition and they don't get the permits, they should be liable for any costs or fines. But they aren't. The homeowner is. Even if the contractor tells them they got the permits.
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    Which is why as the homeowner you should ask for the permits and make sure they're there yourself. I don't know how Ohio is, but here in FL you're required to have a copy of the permit on hand for the building inspector.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,165 Senior Member
    Yes, that is how it is here. I still think the person getting the $$$ should hold more responsibility than the person forking out the $$$. If you pay $200 for the permits and the contractor pockets it, why do you get fined for no permits???

    To many people put a shingle on their door saying they are a professional, when they only want your money and their best professional ability is.....

    shell-game-flash.jpg
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    See, I view that as the person paying not pursuing their due diligence and making sure that the product they paid for is being delivered. But it also goes to show that not everyone who is professional is ethical.
    Overkill is underrated.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement