The Houston Chronicle reports on the way some states are going after unscrupulous hunters.
I suppose the fake deer that was shot 1,000 times was placed in an area where there are millions of hunters and the tiny percentage who took shots at it is nothing. Isn't that the justification used for just about everything by the pro-gun crowd, children who are killed, accidents that happen, CCW guys who crack up, and now those who do poaching?Nighttime deer poachers beware - that shadowy creature on the side of the road may just be remote-controlled.State wildlife officials across the country have for several decades been rolling out roadside robot decoys to nab unscrupulous hunters, and the effort has paid off with hundreds of citations.A robotic deer decoy used in Georgia had to be replaced in 2006 after being shot more than 1,000 times.
My opinion is, as distasteful as entrapment of this kind is on the part of the authorities, it's a useful experiment for seeing how many "hidden criminals" there are among hunters. There are many. Regular shooters are the same. Who among them has never broken the slightest regulation? Yet, they love to proclaim themselves honest and legitimate, and especially they love to distinguish themselves from the real criminals.
I admit there's a big difference between the guy who'll take a couple of shots at a deer on the side of the road and the stick-up man who robs liquor stores. But they both own guns and they both get them from the same source. The weapons are identical regardless of how law-abiding their owner is.
This is why stricter gun control is necessary. This is why the so-called legitimate guys have to be inconvenienced a bit, they call it punishment, but it's necessary to diminish the gun flow.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Minnesota is one of those states that uses robo-deer. And yes we have a lot of legally acquired gun owners who get caught shooting the robo deer illegally, paricularly 'shining' them.
ReplyDeleteThere are also a number of legally acquired gun owners who get caught illegally shooting species which are protected.
Your column is stupid and has no facts to back it up. Your generalization of hunters, criminals, and poachers is ridiculous. Educate yourself before you write any more columns.
ReplyDeleteDimwitted sez:
ReplyDeleteYour column is stupid and has no facts to back it up.
Do you know what a link is? Did you click it?
Educate yourself before you write any more columns
You should talk.
Maybe you should read the post and check the references before making comments.
I like how the blog owner can approve the post. This is hilarious. That way you can only approve the posts that agree with your stupid and uninfomed comments. Jerk!
The blog owner does not have any sort of obligation to post comments.
If you don't like that fact, tough shit.
And if you don't like what we write--then don't read the blog.
But we do enjoy reading ignorant comments like yours, Dimwitted, and posting them for public ridicule.
Although, I do prefer to moderate much more than my co-bloggers.
They find enjoyment in wasting bandwidth with things that don't add to the topic.
BTW, dimwitted, do you know what the term spotlighting refers to?
Also, do you know what is the difference between a poacher and a hunter?
Educate yourself before making idiotic comments, Dimwitted.
Disgusting, you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteI take particular pride here and on my home blog in demonstrating a factual basis and backing up with facts pretty much everything I post.
You sound like a whiny git who wishes we were less accurate and informed.
Lets start with the difference between a post and a comment. A post is the article we the co-bloggers / admin write, often involving a media source supplemented by our commentary on it.
I like to provide multiple sources,with links in many of mine. Perhaps you are familiar with the premise in ethical journalism for example that requires multisourcing? If not, you should acquaint yourself with it.
Comments are what readers offer in response to a post - which is physically limited by the space limitations of blogger, and on this blog by the mostly consistent rules individually applied by the four of us who blog here - the blog owner who is Mikeb, jadegold, laci, and myself.
When you master the basics, it would be nice to hear something of substance from you; be prepared to back it up with links to verfiable independent qualified sources.
Dog Gone - Let's see, I need to back up my comments with facts and resources......hmm. You mean like you did? I keep reading it over and over and I just don't see anything that backs up your "opinions" and solidifies them into fact. What was the source that proves that "there are a number of legally acquired gun owners who get caught illegally shooting species which are protected"? Can you show me the data on legally purcased guns which resulted in Bald Eagle deaths last year? I am aware of multisourcing and yet I dont see any in your blog other than the original article that doesn't substantiate your claims.
ReplyDeleteTo Laci - I do know what a link is, I did click it......didn't find any facts to back up Dog Gone's opinions. Do you know what jacklighting or shining is? I am VERY aware of what a hunter and a poacher is, but it appears that your blog links them together. They are not one in the same. I was responding to your blog because it is inaccurate and not factual. Its people like you that give everybody else that is out there doing the right thing a bad name. And if you wanted facts you should have posted my other comment...but you didn't did ya? So what I have realized is that I stumbled upon a blog that has 4 people who all think the same way and have decided to make a little club out of talking about stuff they know nothing about but like chatting about it.
Even though I am not a hunter (I am a vegetarian, actually) I find that I must agree with your statements. Hunters despise poachers and turn them in and make fun of them when they are caught.
DeleteDisgusted, I didn't understand exactly what you're objecting to. The article I linked to made some fairly strong accusations against hunters, but ones which I found believable.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point, that hunters are truly squared away responsible gun owners, generally speaking?
Mike, did you notice that they used the terms Utahns and shooters? That is the way the entire article should have read. It is incorrect to say that HUNTERS did this or HUNTERS did that. If they were out at night hunting deer by a spotlight, they are NOT hunters. They are poachers and criminals and should be sentenced as such. My complaint was that comments that tied hunters and poachers, legal gun owners and protected animal killers, are ridiculous and not factually backed by anything.
ReplyDeleteDimwitted sez:
ReplyDeleteAnd if you wanted facts you should have posted my other comment.
Did you understand what I wrote? We are under no obligation to post comments.
In fact,I rather enjoy deleting whiny comments like that, but the co-bloggers like to post them.
They like it when whingers like you come along.
So what I have realized is that I stumbled upon a blog that has 4 people who all think the same way and have decided to make a little club out of talking about stuff they know nothing about but like chatting about it.
Then, you don't have to read what we write.
No one is forcing you to read this. If anything,you are forcing your opinion on us--whining that we don't post your comments.
Tough luck,this is our blog--not yours.
As I said, before and it needs repeating since you take a while for it to soak in, you don't need to read this blog if you don't like what we write.
"In fact,I rather enjoy deleting whiny comments like that, but the co-bloggers like to post them." Finally you came out with a fact. Maybe your co-bloggers like to post them because they feel that they can spell words correctly and maybe engage in a decent discussion that might benefit both sides instead of calling people whiners.....or whingers as you spell it. Thanks, I've gained alot from your input.
ReplyDeleteDimwitted proves he didn't read the original article when he sez:
ReplyDeleteMike, did you notice that they used the terms Utahns and shooters? That is the way the entire article should have read. It is incorrect to say that HUNTERS did this or HUNTERS did that.
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Wildlife-officials-use-robo-deer-to-catch-poachers-2210326.php
Hunting is not allowed at night in Utah, starting a half hour after sunset until a half hour before sunrise, but authorities say the sight of a big deer on the side of a road can just be too tempting for some...
Hunters will generally use headlights to illuminate the deer, then take their shot. It doesn't matter if it's a bow and arrow or a rifle — if it's at night, it's illegal without special permission, Briggs said...
Briggs said he's seen it all, from bow hunters shooting multiple arrows at the inanimate robot deer, amazed that it's not going down, to shooters with rifles repeatedly firing shots at the mechanical beast...
"If somebody gets caught shooting the deer from the road, it ruins their reputation as a hunter," Bruce said. "Their name goes up on the wall of shame among local hunters."
Sounds like they confuse the terms as well--did you write to the Houston Chronicle to complain--or just us?
Are you saying that spotlighting doesn't happen, dimwitted?
Are you saying that the firearms used by poachers are illegally acquired?
Where is YOUR proof for YOUR assertions, Dimwitted.
Dimwitted, the only point you are making here isn't very complimentary to your intelligence. You are a troll who is need of attention.
If you don't like what is published here, don't read it.
Dimwitted sez:
ReplyDelete"In fact,I rather enjoy deleting whiny comments like that, but the co-bloggers like to post them." Finally you came out with a fact. Maybe your co-bloggers like to post them because they feel that they can spell words correctly and maybe engage in a decent discussion that might benefit both sides instead of calling people whiners.....or whingers as you spell it. Thanks, I've gained alot from your input.
Dimwitted, did you read your comments?
Did you read what I wrote in response to you?
Did you miss that I actually refute your assertions with facts?
That's something you have yet to do.
As I said, if you don't like what we write, then don't read this blog.
Laci, it is apparent that you are benath having a normal conversation because you need to make silly names like "dimwitted" and "troll". Thats cute. Obviously you are picking what you needed out of the article to try and make your point. I was merely bringing to your attention that you are making comments that have a very one sided slant and generalizing the subject matter. When I asked direct questions ralating to the topic you came back with tremendous answers such as "if you don't like what we write" or "you should talk" or "you sound like a whiny git? who wishes we were less accurate and informed." Have you ever hunted? Have you ever taught State Hunter Education? Are you anti-gun? Are you anti-hunting? Have you ever lectured to support your beliefs, backed by facts, or do you just "talk" about them?
ReplyDeleteRefute? wow...really? Where did you refute anything?
ReplyDeleteYes, I read everything you posted. "Hunting is not allowed at night in Utah, starting a half hour after sunset until a half hour before sunrise,"....then its NOT done by a HUNTER.
ReplyDelete""If somebody gets caught shooting the deer from the road, it ruins their reputation as a hunter," Bruce said. "Their name goes up on the wall of shame among local hunters."......this comment is what I am referring to as when NOT to use the word HUNTER and should use the word SHOOTER or POACHER. It's your blog, you make the rules, I get it.
Dimwitted sez:
ReplyDeleteObviously you are picking what you needed out of the article to try and make your point.
And what is my point?
I guess I have to reiterate it for you.
You come here and make the accusation that:
Your column is stupid and has no facts to back it up. Your generalization of hunters, criminals, and poachers is ridiculous. Educate yourself before you write any more columns.
MikeB did not write the original column, The original article was written by an Associated Press Columnist.
And yes, I did pick sections of the original article to show that your comment was unfounded. The original article uses the terms poacher and hunter rather interchangeably, as do the spokespeople from Utah DNR.
You make an unfounded accusation that MikeB is the person confusing the terms.
Yes, I hunt--in more ways than you are probably aware.
You cannot deny that there are people out there who do these activities--while you would like to separate them from legitimate hunters.
But exist they do.
And I take the word of State DNR officials more than I take some anonymous troll who has only had his ID since October 2011.
And, yes, you are most likely a troll since pretty much every statement you have made in incorrect and not backed up by facts--despite your request that we provide them.
I seriously doubt that you read the original article and are trying to attack me because I actually refute your claims with citations.
Something I have yet to see you do.
Dimwitted sez:
ReplyDeleteYes, I read everything you posted. "Hunting is not allowed at night in Utah, starting a half hour after sunset until a half hour before sunrise,"....then its NOT done by a HUNTER.
""If somebody gets caught shooting the deer from the road, it ruins their reputation as a hunter," Bruce said. "Their name goes up on the wall of shame among local hunters."......this comment is what I am referring to as when NOT to use the word HUNTER and should use the word SHOOTER or POACHER. It's your blog, you make the rules, I get it.
Yes, but you missed the fact that the two quotations you used came from the ORIGINAL article.
If you were intelligent, you would have caught that.
You need to address your JOSH LOFTIN, at the Associated Press as he is the person who wrote those comments.
And you wonder why I call you dimwitted.
It's your blog, you make the rules, I get it.
Yep, that's the case.
But, you should really know what you are talking about before making comments.
I should add the dictionary definition of poaching:
ReplyDeleteillegally hunt or catch (game or fish) on land that is not one’s own, or in contravention of official protection.
So, poaching is a form of hunting.
First, in my role admin, I am posting a comment which for some reason was lost - as occasionally happens. So here is the missing comment from disgusting:
ReplyDelete"disgusted has left a new comment on your post "Unscrupulous Hunters Caught Shooting Mechanical De...":
www.chuckhawks.com/hunting_vs_poaching.htm
www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/306_s328.pdf
www.ihea.com/
www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/hunter_ed.htm
www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=124
These are called links that lead to FACTS just in case you were wondering how it worked.
which provides the sources / links/ facts we requested.
What appears to be the essence of his complaint is that he wishes to make the distinction between between hunters and poachers.
Despite how much disgusting is incensed, poachers ARE a kind of hunter, if you define hunters as those who engage in hunting.
I provide as my source for this definition dictionary.com:
World English Dictionary
poacher 1 (ˈpəʊtʃə) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
1. a person who illegally hunts game, fish, etc, on someone else's property
SO, Laci, mikeb, and I ARE perfectly correct in our use of the word poacher to refer to someone WHO ILLEGALLY HUNTS.
To document the facts of our usage is this reference, also from dictionary.com and the world english dictionary:
World English Dictionary
hunter (ˈhʌntə) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
1. Female equivalent: huntress a person or animal that seeks out and kills or captures game
Nowhere in this definition does it exclude poachers as HUNTERS or indicate they must be used differently rather than being interchangeable, so long as the distinction of legality is noted.
Sorry disgusting, but you cannot fairly require a more narrow use of the word from us or the AP than is permitted by the dictionary. You lack the authority of oh, say, the OED.
I don't see your sources as trumping the dictionary, and in any case it is a nitpicking stupid distinction on your part.
Dimwitted's links aren't really useful facts.
ReplyDeleteHe cites to one study about the correlation of hunting to crime which states:
While all three studies attempted to answer the same question about the influence of hunting on criminal behavior, each derived opposing conclusions. The reasons for this may involve the methodological differences across the studies.
Yes? If you are trying to use that to bolster your point that hunters are law abiding,then you need to have actually read what you posted.
The other links all point to various hunter education classes, which don't really make any point--poachers don't tend to attend these type of courses.
If anything, poachers exist within the universe of hunters--as is obvious from this article.
Yes, this sort of activity puts hunters to shame, but some of these people see this as a way to put food on the table.
You provide links, which don't help to bolster your opinion, Dimwitted. If anything, you come off as a whiny little bugger who doesn't understand that the original article confused the terms and keeps whining that we don't post your comments.
If you had a brain and understood the original article and MikeB's post, you would understand that this doesn't call all hunters criminals--only the ones who hunt illegally.
And they are called poachers.
I should add that some poachers do it for the money, but most deer poachers in the US do it to feed their families.
ReplyDeleteNot a justification, but a reality in these economic times.
Dimwitted, you are troll since you have chosen to come here with your inane and unsupported comments. I strongly suggest that you go to
ReplyDeletethis forum and make the comments such as these that you made here:
Have you ever hunted? Have you ever taught State Hunter Education? Are you anti-gun? Are you anti-hunting? Have you ever lectured to support your beliefs, backed by facts, or do you just "talk" about them?
This type of behaviour exists and you have not provided any evidence that it does not.
In fact, you haven't made any cogent comments about this post.
We still come back to the fundamental issue of basic definitions. Going out to track down and Kill animals, whether for food or for financial gain is hunting. This is true, whether the prey is legal or illegal,or whether the prey is in season or not in season.
ReplyDeleteWhether you teach or do not teach; whether Laci teaches or does not teach; nor your convictions, nor Laci's convictions, or anyone else's beliefs about terms changes the common use of those terms in common usage as defined by dictionaries.
We are all in agreement that hunting ilegally is bad, it is criminal behavior. It is equally possible for a hunter does some of his (or her) hutning legally, and some of it illegally.
What I take from this post is something that I think you would fundamentally agree with, that people who use their access to firearms to hunt illegally or to do anything else with their firearms that is illegal, should be penalized / punished, and should be subsequently barred from gun ownership for breaking the law,
I don't see this as entrapment. Robotic deer being replaced so often show that these are commonly violated laws, involving illegal use of firearms.
Entrapment would be if a DNR official encouraged someone specifically to go do something they would not do without that encouragement, such as offering the hunter/poacher money to go do that illegal shooting - THAT would be entrapmnt.
But I will leave it to my colleague Laci to elaborate on what does and does not constitute entrapment by authority.
It would make a fascinating study if someone decided to look at arrests or citations for this kind of robo-deer shooting with CC permits...
Entrapment. First, It is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense which would be illegal and the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.
ReplyDeletePutting a fake deer up is no more entrapment than an undercover officer selling someone dope or posing as a prostitute. Law enforcement can put the bait up, they just can't induce someone to take the bait.
While I can understand a poor person's need to feed their family, this is dangerous to other people.
I was driving through the countryside when a spotlight came on. I know it's an assumption, but it's a fairly safe one that the person was spotlighting. I didn't feel too comfortable knowing that someone with a high-powered rifle could have shot at my car. It still scares me to think that this person could have shot and hit our car had there been a deer present.
I'm not sure what our troll is trying to prove, but this is not behaviour that should be:
1) denied
2) condoned
As I said, these hunters probably could care less about hunter safety courses. And the poachers I know could probably teach him quite a lot about hunting.
The issue is that these people are playing fast and loose with the law.
And public safety.
I agree Laci - thanks so much for the clarification as to what is and is not entrapment.
ReplyDeleteDisgusted, I strongly oppose the excessive response and name calling used by my co-bloggers. I try to avoid that myself, but I've given them permission to do it like they want. I would oppose even more strongly a blog owner who demanded his co-bloggers to do exactly what he does.
ReplyDeleteAbout your claim that the guys shooting deer at night are not hunters, I say that's total bullshit. In fact, in most cases the guys shooting the mechanical deer were in the woods legally hunting just a few hours earlier before it got dark.
And, I admit, you've got some drunken gun owners who don't even hunt driving around at night shooting from the car at road signs and animals, you know just for kicks.
So what it boils down to is too many hunters and too many gun owners who are not hunters, are irresponsible assholes, dangerous to themselves and others and they give the rest of you a bad name.
You should be the first one to want to clean them up rather than deny their existance or minimize their numbers.
Mikeb302000, Laci The Dog, dog gone and JadeGold:
ReplyDeleteI think it would be, like, way cool, if you could figure out a way to make all of the gunztrollz comments appear under a "Shithead of the day" blognomen, since none of them want to use their own or put up a genuine photo. Poor babies.
I'm not sure what the troll is trying to prove, but this does happen.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, troll: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
If our troll had read the original article, he would know his complaint was unfounded.
Secondly, this type of behaviour happens and his links did not refute that it does.
Of course, there is a significant part of the gunowner community that is in denial.
And we have this person who is in denial as well.
Democommie sez:
ReplyDeleteI think it would be, like, way cool, if you could figure out a way to make all of the gunztrollz comments appear under a "Shithead of the day" blognomen, since none of them want to use their own or put up a genuine photo. Poor babies.
I think its one person who has an axe to grind.
And no brain to boot.
So much for giving the strawman a degree!
Let him count fish!
I think Demo has an excellent suggestion.
ReplyDelete