Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

More on Nugent

13

Replies

  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,156 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.

    And some are very very good at making you think you know exactly where the pea is at all times.....
    "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: 13,493 Senior Member
    Yep! I've learned that (the hard way) with other stuff I've done. If in doubt, check for yourself.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Attack the messenger.
    Ethics and personal integrity go hand in hand with complying with hunting laws.
    And bisley, if you were a real hunter, you'd have to agree with that.
    You say that you're not defending Nugent, but you take a lot of trouble to attack me when I bring his actions to light.
    Jim
  • wildgenewildgene Senior Member Posts: 1,036 Senior Member
    ...working as a guide, I can guarantee you that I'm expected by the outfitter I'm working for, the state Outfitters Board, the state Game & Fish, & the client, to know & obey the pertinent regulations. If I hired a guide I would expect the same. Don't make it right, but @ least Ted stood up, admitted to the mistakes he made, & paid up. You feel the need to nail someone to the cross, maybe the AG, our old buddy Holder would be a good place to start, since he's continually lied & obfuscated all his little "misdoin's"...
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Gene,
    I appreciate your position.
    But here we go again, interjecting politics.
    It has no place in the discusion of game law violations.
    Jim
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,713 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Gene,
    I appreciate your position.
    But here we go again, interjecting politics.
    It has no place in the discusion of game law violations.
    Jim

    Who makes the game laws?

    Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Gene,
    I appreciate your position.
    But here we go again, interjecting politics.
    It has no place in the discusion of game law violations.
    Jim

    If you believe for one minute the Lacy Act isn't just dripping with politics, political favors, and outright BRIBES, then I can't help you. Game laws are LOADED with political baggage.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • wildgenewildgene Senior Member Posts: 1,036 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Gene,
    I appreciate your position.
    But here we go again, interjecting politics.
    It has no place in the discusion of game law violations.
    Jim

    ..."Horsepuckey!!!"...

    ...you started this whole thing to point out your moral outrage & superiority. My point is if I hire a guide, I expect him to give me knowledgeable advice, & keep me from doing something stupid, not to suggest it because he isn't aware of the applicable regulations. If you decide to hold one person to your standards, you should be willing to hold everyone to your standards, instead of wafflin' & weaselin', saying, "but, he's a Democrat, or he's a govt. appointee, & is justified in flaunting the Constitution, because most of you are too ignorant to take care of yourselves". Or don't you believe that violations of the Public Trust are just as important as Game & Fish violations...
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    If this isn't a political discussion, it shouldn't be in the political forum. Placing it here implied that the original poster had a political intent behind his post, considering his other post on Nugent....

    And Gene, I do agree with you regarding holding all to the same standards. I honestly can't really blame Nugent for this one too much. It's not in the regs pamphlet, and the way of allocating bears is rather torturous. Were I king, I'd have a state bag limit, with individual allotments per game unit. None of this "game killed in Unit X may prohibit you in harvesting in Y although you could still get some in Z" stuff. Now, his baiting deer in California was just stupid, and he, the landowner, and the producers should have known about that just with a cursory perusal of the CA game regs....
    Overkill is underrated.
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,156 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Gene,
    I appreciate your position.
    But here we go again, interjecting politics.
    It has no place in the discusion of game law violations.
    Jim

    Then riddle me this Batman. Why did you post this in the 2nd Amend/Political forum and not the Hunting?????

    Sent from my R800x using Tapatalk 2
    "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
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Are Weasels varmints, or fur-bearing animals? How about liberals? They've got a lot of the same characteristics!
    Jerry
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Sorry I hurt your feelings, airdale. But, look on the bright side - at least you have something fresh to feel outraged about.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Since I seem to have caused this discussion to get sidetracked by questioning who is a hunter and who isn't, I'll give the definition that I meant to apply to this particular discussion.

    A hunter is someone who hunts legal game animals or varmints as often as his/her time, finances, and opportunity allows. He/she uses whatever skills, methods, and locations that are available to him/her and the best equipment he/she can justify that is suited to his/her purpose. For me, that means dove and quail at every legal opportunity, squirrels and rabbits occasionally, whitetails during the legal season, and 4 legged varmints whenever they present a shot. I have done a lot of duck hunting, and have been turkey hunting, once.

    I obey the laws, as best as I am able to interpret them, and teach or encourage the people who will listen to me to do the same. I have made mistakes about some of the more obscure laws, and I have seen many other hunters make mistakes. In fact, I doubt that I have ever known an avid hunter that has not made a mistake in interpreting a game law, or did not at some time make a mistake in judgment, when determining whether an animal was legal to shoot.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,669 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »

    Think calling this kind of stuff Nazi-like is beyond the pale? This comes from the administration and his corrupt, dirty little minions, and will only get worse if the scummer is re-elected.

    Everyone who thinks there's no difference between Romney and Ovomit better think again. This behavior of government agents and the "Justice" Department comes from the top down...remember that.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Here are the bear hunting regulations for the state of Alaska. Looks like they took the hint and bolded and highlighted the part of the regulation previously buried in the regulations when Nugent was hunting.

    Anybody want to read this thing once and tell me what it really says? Anybody think that they can read it four or five times and not be subject to making a mistake? Any out of state ethical hunter that has never made a mistake in his life should be able to follow these regulations to the letter without any problem. Right? BTW, this is just part of the regulations.

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/wildliferegulations/pdfs/bear.pdf
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    If anyone here can read, and understand that by reading through it just ONE TIME, and pass a test about those laws, I will shave my and kiss theirs.

    Thats the most confusing bunch of crap I have ever seen. Not too mention the whole "wounded" bear counting to your limit.

    If you want to go stark raving mad, read the moose hunting regulations, or the fishing regulations. :silly: :silly:
    "Hold still you :cuss::cuss: Bullwinkle so I can measure yore antler spread to see if yore a legal animule to shoot! Be still! Be still, I say! Yore antlers is gorin' my Gortex! And get that dinner plate sized hoof off mine! Yore squishin' my toebonez!" :rotflmao:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Uncle BS wrote: »
    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

    I agree with that, Ted can get someone to look up the regs for him, but that someone was probably his Guide.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 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.

    Well yes, In a Perfect world......
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    If anyone here can read, and understand that by reading through it just ONE TIME, and pass a test about those laws, I will shave my and kiss theirs.

    Thats the most confusing bunch of crap I have ever seen. Not too mention the whole "wounded" bear counting to your limit.

    Ain't a lawyer on this planet, I don't care how brilliant he/she may be, will read a document one time and go with it. That's their secret. They will read the ink off the page re-reading until they have got every bit of it digested. But they know lawyerese, the language of snakes. Us plain mortals don't savy all that.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Yep, the perfect world in hunting related activities would be to have the hunter read, understand the local laws and adhere to them.
    Pretty simple, isn't it? That's what we all try to do.
    Except for folks who regard themselves above the law.
    As best as I can understand, Nugent wounded a bear with his bow, abandoned the chase to recover the wounded animal (nice thought) and took a second bear with a rifle on the archery license.
    Anything political about this? I think not.
    It's plain ethics.
    I ask, would any of you do what Nugent did?
    This is a political/hunting topic because Nugent has been a political/ hunting activist.
    You guys amaze me, you pontificate about game laws, but excuse your political favorites when they violate them.
    Jim
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Yep, the perfect world in hunting related activities would be to have the hunter read, understand the local laws and adhere to them.
    Pretty simple, isn't it? That's what we all try to do.
    Except for folks who regard themselves above the law.
    As best as I can understand, Nugent wounded a bear with his bow, abandoned the chase to recover the wounded animal (nice thought) and took a second bear with a rifle on the archery license.
    Anything political about this? I think not.
    It's plain ethics.
    I ask, would any of you do what Nugent did?
    This is a political/hunting topic because Nugent has been a political/ hunting activist.
    You guys amaze me, you pontificate about game laws, but excuse your political favorites when they violate them.
    Jim

    He was charged with killing a bear after he had shot and slightly wounded a bear with a bow. The charge was killing two bears on one kill tag. He was not charged with killing a bear with a rifle on a bow tag. You made that part up about the rifle kill on a bow tag; provide a link to the charge of killing a bear with a rifle on a bow tag, and I'll apologize.

    Nobody is excusing anything. That is all made up in your mind, and has no basis in fact. I seriously doubt you read the link to the Alaska bear hunting regulations I posted. You know he's guilty of something(which he is) and you step up in your pulpit and pontificate from on high about what a low life scum bucket he is because he accidentally screwed up, admitted it, and is doing everything required of the law to make restitution. You don't like Nugent, and will accuse him of facts not in evidence because of that dislike. So be it. You don't like him, but throwing out accusations against the forum members from your supposed moral high ground is getting a little annoying.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    He stirs the pot, gets a huge stink going, and somebody inevitably takes the bait. Don't feed the troll!
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    He stirs the pot, gets a huge stink going, and somebody inevitably takes the bait. Don't feed the troll!
    Jerry

    Maybe I just need to go thermonuclear preemptive strike????!!! :silly:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    As best as I can understand.....

    This would be the operative phrase, since it allows you to alter the facts and gloss over the parts that don't appear to back up your breathless accusations.

    I think I've made all of the points I wanted to make. Please continue without me. :zzzz:
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,462 Senior Member
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    He is a human being like everyone else and we all have flaws, make bad decisions here and there, some big, some small.

    BUT...

    Fact is that he is a PRO GUN public figure in a media where there are very few and any "wrong" he does, more so if a firearm is involved is ammo for the antis!
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Because, Robin, Nugent has been running his mouth about political issues.

    I just use a cheap computer, I'm pleased to see that you're one of the elite.
    Do you text also??
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Bis,

    I question your accusation about glossing over facts.
    The fact is that your boy Nugent wounded a bear with his bow while hunting with an archery license, abandoned the search for the wounded bear, and then took a second bear with his rifle. Violating the Alaskan game laws and every ethical practice of hunters world wide. The burden of game laws is on the hunter, not the guide.
    Got me so far?? Is that "breathless"?
    I'm not going to allow you to escape without your explanation of why you defend an obvious game law violator.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    This article explains the charges against Nugent. HE DID NOT, NOR WAS HE CHARGED WITH SHOOTING A BEAR WITH A RIFLE ON AN ARCHERY LICENSE! He had the proper licenses, and had checked with Alaska game officials to be sure about the law. Maybe they didn't tell him because they, too, were unaware of the weird law he broke? You know, that PDF document I linked to a while back?

    http://hutchnews.com/OutdoorsDaily/Ted-Nugent

    According to the document, Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in May 2009 on Sukkwan Island in southeast Alaska after wounding another bear in a bow hunt. The bow incident counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.

    The musician's lawyer, Wayne Anthony Ross, also has said Nugent didn't know he was breaking the law.

    The plea agreement says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear in misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act.

    The document says Nugent agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and serve two years of probation, including a special condition that he not hunt or fish in Alaska or on U.S. Forest Service properties for a year.


    The judge and Nugent's lawyer, both avid hunters, were unaware of the law that Nugent broke. Airedale, If Nugent committed ritual suicide, would that satisfy your lust for justice?
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
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