You be the judge!

[Redfrog]

There seems to be some different ideas about what kind of penalties should be awarded for wildlife offences.
Here's two scenarios: tell me what the penalties should be.

Two deer hunters from the city are hunting on a graze lease that they have not asked permission for. One of them kills a deer. as they get back to the truck with the deer they get busted by the game warden acting on a complaint from the lessee. The two men admit to having no permission and agree they should have.

Second scenario. Same piece of land.. two weeks later, a guide is with his client. The client shoots a deer, as they are dragging it to the truck, they get busted by the game warden. they admit they had no permission and agree they should have.

What do you think the penalty should be in each of these cases?

[TreeGuy]

I'd say the same baseline punishment for both situations (with an *)

Same crime same time!

However, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". A couple of city goofs screwing up is a long way from a professional doing the same thing. That is why there are minimum and maximum punishments. It allows law enforcement/judiciary to excercise descretion. Screwing up is alot different than doing something with knowledge and intent. IMHO

Tree

[

[Dick284]

Fact is the guide already is held to a higher standard. The guide has to have on his person the home location, name and telephone number of the land/title holder of any private land.
So the way I'd call it, both parties in question have broken the same law WRT to petty trespass(Assuming not classed as occupied land, not stated), so the punishment should be equal under the law.
But the guide has broken another piece of legislation therefore, and additional sanction should be placed upon him for the lack of proof of permission.

[catnthehat]

I agree with Dick, this is one of the reasons that non-residents are required to hunt with a guide, so he can ensure that they are not breaking any laws.
The guest/client is putting his trust in the guide to ensure that he is doing everything above board.

But the fact remains that the penalty will likely not be high enough!
Cat

[Okotokian]

Same basic penalty under the trespass law.... But I think something additional should happen to the guide with regard to his licence... maybe a short suspension.

[Walleyes]

When the game warden was first notified by the leasee he should have told him that he does not technically own the land and if the hunters are doing no damage by dragging the deer out that he has more important issues to deal with..
Beings they were getting back to the truck with the deer I would assume that they entered on foot and under the law the public can not be denied reasonable access. If there is no immediate danger to them...
If taken to court I would suspect none or minimal if any charges would be laid.... I'd take it if it was a hog

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by Walleyes

When the game warden was first notified by the leasee he should have told him that he does not technically own the land and if the hunters are doing no damage by dragging the deer out that he has more important issues to deal with..
Beings they were getting back to the truck with the deer I would assume that they entered on foot and under the law the public can not be denied reasonable access. If there is no immediate danger to them...
If taken to court I would suspect none or minimal if any charges would be laid.... I'd take it if it was a hog

Thats a stupid comment....the leaseholder must give permission. He's paying the lease, and any azzhole cant just go on because he figures he gets 'reasonable access' by default. Do you actually beleive the crap you just wrote? You've pretty much admitted that you'd tresspass if a deer was big enough.....lol. Good luck with that.....

Dont want to turn this into a leaseholder/permission thread, but that was simply ignorant as they get....I fully support the leaseholder program and obtaining access to leases, but I hate it when people think they can tresspass on leaseland simply because they figure they get access automatically. Slob hunting IMO to run around and not do your work and contact the leaseholder for permission, and tresspassing all the same....

I say the guide is held to a higher standard, as Dick pointed out he is also breaking an additional law by not having permission and guiding.

[Jamie]

Those that do it for $$$ should have to live up to a higher standard. Guides should face much stiffer penalty's.

Jamie

[ABwhitetail]

I agree with Walleyes in regard that the hunters shouldn't be denied access to the lease land, but I believe the still need to contact the leasee prior to actually accessing the land.

That being said I believe the infraction was identical in both cases. But I don't beielve the fines should be equal. Simply put the outfitter is running a "business" which he profits from, therefore an equal fine wouldn't have the same impact on the outfitter as the hunters....So in the case of the outfitter, the fine should be higher...

[Rackmastr]

What happens if a recreational user doesn't contact the leaseholder first or comply with the conditions of use?

This may be considered a contravention of the Public Lands Act, and may be subject to a fine of up to $2000. However, if a recreational user tries repeatedly to make contact, but cannot connect with you, the user may request approval from the Department to access the lease land under the basic conditions of use

[Walleyes]

I'd still take it if it was a hog oooh I can see it now hear comes all of our self appointed rangers out of the wood work

[Rackmastr]

Yea have fun with that....I'm not in the wood-work, just not stupid enough to admit that I'd break the law while hunting for a big deer......but hey....I guess you make your own bed....

[chef]

First -The avid hunter faces a minimal fine and is accountable for his actions ,he will loose his license if the lease holder presses on with treaspassing charges .Both hunters in that party are accountable but the dude that didnt shoot the animal should only be charged as an accesary to the crime .
I dont think a treaspassing charge should warrant losing equipment .
Poaching , jacking , or even dangerous use of a firearm would be a good reason to loose equipment..

The guide takes an oath i am assuming swearing to uphold fair chase etc.
he should face a huge penalty as well as if not getting a suspesion of guide rights ,then maybe a reduction in licenses available to him,
The guided hunters most likely unaware of any illegal doings would loose thier game and the rest of thier hunt .
canadian hunting privledges for a 3 yr period .
I had a situation where i shot a mulie buck ,with an arrow which dodged across 2 fencelines into private land ,by the time i got to where the deer crossed into a farmers property and he heard the deer hit his fence .
He came to see what was going on , I told him what had happened and he said i could look for the deer .
The deer went about 60 yrds along his fence and died about 10 feet inside his fence.
I assumed all was ok ,until i recieved a call from F&W about a treaspassing charge and the fact i was going to loose my game as well as facing the rest of the consequenses.
I told my story when he arrived to my house ,after a couple phone conversations and talking to the farmer ,he realized i was being railroaded and the farmer was wasting our time and tax dollars being a complete knob.
I guess im trying to say not all things are as they may seem to appear and should be examined to a full extent before judgement is passed.

[ABwhitetail]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

What happens if a recreational user doesn't contact the leaseholder first or comply with the conditions of use?

This may be considered a contravention of the Public Lands Act, and may be subject to a fine of up to $2000. However, if a recreational user tries repeatedly to make contact, but cannot connect with you, the user may request approval from the Department to access the lease land under the basic conditions of use

My experience has all been positive when dealing with leasees of lease land...following the above makes perfect sense...its just a matter of treating the leasee as you would wish to be treated...going out and blasting deer because they are "huge" (in your books) and dealing with the consequences later, only makes it more difficult for the rest of us.

If your hunting an area with lease land....talk to the leasee right away, before you see that trophy....then when you do, there are no concerns!

[buckshoot]

the hunters in the two scenarios should get the same penalty for the same bad decision, the outfitter and/or guide on the other hand made a bad business decision and should face penalties that are substantially larger. A guide or outfitter that does something has the potential to take several times the game of an individual and should be penalized accordingly.

[Redfrog]

Hmmm? Interesting discsussion guys, but I'd really like to here what you guys think the penalties should be.

In both cases the perps admitted to hunting with no permission.

[Jamie]

Hmmm..
Lots of different scenarios to consider.
Was this a trophy deer? (yes it matters)
Were there any previous convictions?
Was the hunter under the impression from his guide that they had permission?
(ex, did the guide purposefully put his client at risk)
Age and experience of the 2 city boys also counts. If you have 2 long term hunters the penalty should be more severe. Two young kids you would hate to ruin the rest of there hunting careers over this. Rehab is a great option here.

Sorry Redfrog, I am having trouble answering your question, way to many variables for me.

If it was worst case scenario, I would call it this.
Guide takes a fine of whatever he charged the client, if it was a $6,000 hunt, then that is what his fine is.
As for his right to guide clients I would say a two year suspension would be in order. If this was not his first time at the rodeo I would say 5 years Min.
As for the city guys, $1,000 + 1 year suspension
If they were kids I would say 100 hours community service with a like minded organization. (AHEIA, Volunteering with a F/W office ETC ETC)

The problem is that there is no Black and white, just different shades of Grey.

Jamie

[ABwhitetail]

I agree...too many unknowns. One thing I do know is, that the game should be taken away and donated.....

I am not sure why whether the deer is a "trophy" or not matters?

[Walleyes]

I figured I would get a rise out some guys with those comments... Come on guys lighten up....
I,, like I'm sure many hunters do,, pass up on many nice animals on property we don't have permission to hunt on... It is the law...
Around home most of our land owners are quite generous when it comes to their leases,, most don't require hunters to get permission unless they have livestock on it and which case it would be posted,, and then its obvious to watch....
I have quite a few neighbors that hold leases and they openly admit that there is not much they can do to prevent people from hunting on lease land...
In the scenario posted I highly doubt any charges would be laid,,, unless there was damage done to property or livestock... You cannot,, without reason refuse access to PUBLICY held lands... A lease holder cannot refuse access just because,,, and as such cannot charge you just because... Sorry but I would take this one to court and chances are there would be no charges laid...

Originally Posted by Redfrog

There seems to be some different ideas about what kind of penalties should be awarded for wildlife offences.
Here's two scenarios: tell me what the penalties should be.

Two deer hunters from the city are hunting on a graze lease that they have not asked permission for. One of them kills a deer. as they get back to the truck with the deer they get busted by the game warden acting on a complaint from the lessee. The two men admit to having no permission and agree they should have.

Second scenario. Same piece of land.. two weeks later, a guide is with his client. The client shoots a deer, as they are dragging it to the truck, they get busted by the game warden. they admit they had no permission and agree they should have.

What do you think the penalty should be in each of these cases?

Very Cut and dry to me I for one wont read any extra into it Redfrog The two city slick's should get a fine at least $1,500 and loose the deer pluse Take a hunters training course young or old DOSEN'T Matter.They broke the law

As for the Guide his lis should be gone for a year and would have to take his Guide course again pluse a higher fine $ 5,000.00 as for his client $1,500.00 pluse if he wanted to come back he would also have to take the hunting training course.

Was this a trophy deer? (yes it matters)

as for the deer size it dosent matter The deer is dead and the damage is done .Thats my two cent's redfrog

[Redfrog]

Thanks Painkiller. I was trying to keep it a simple as I could.

Don't read anymore into it than I said. Both groups simply neglected to contact the lessee for permission. Age has no bearing on this, no previous encountrs with the law. Simply a case of what I presented.

I'm asking for penalty suggestions because some thought the "fish pachers" got off lightly. I'd like to know what other outdoorsman think would be fair penalties.

[GillieSuit]

Both parties broke the same law.

Both parties failed to gain permission on lease lands prior to harvesting an animal.

If you ask me they should get slapped with a hefty fine......somewhere around 1500 dollars per person and then the should have their hunting licenses, and guiding licenses suspended for at least 1 full hunting season.

In addition they should have their vehicles and rifles impounded with release pending payment in full of all fines. In addition they should have to write a publicy posted letter of appology to the lease holder.

This kind of crap is what makes it so difficult to obtain access to lease lands and deeded lands. Most people are too lazy to ask and then that screws everything up. Land owners get ****ed and lazy hunters get away with murder because we don't have enough officers to police the land. Therefore, on the odd occasion that someone actually does get caught make a hell of an example out of them........That way maybe just maybe some of those lazy hunters will get the message and think twice about poaching.

Just my two cents worth.

Regards,

BRC

[nube]

Boy some of you guys are pretty hard on a guy. Not much for giving a guy a break. I am thinking these guys are first time offenders and I can not see them getting more than a 3-5 hundred dollar fine. I won't comment on the guide thing for numerous reasons. Mostly because it allways ends up in a ****ing match but i will say that he should know better for sure.

[Ice Fishing Maniac]

I would say both should have the same punnishment plus the guide should get repremanded and have a black mark beside his/her name and if it happens again, then they should not be allowed to get a guiding permit for minimum 1 year, if not longer if its an 2nd or 3rd offence (5 year/10year plus a stiff fine)

[killerbren]

Originally Posted by Walleyes

In the scenario posted I highly doubt any charges would be laid,,, unless there was damage done to property or livestock... You cannot,, without reason refuse access to PUBLICY held lands... A lease holder cannot refuse access just because,,, and as such cannot charge you just because... Sorry but I would take this one to court and chances are there would be no charges laid...

Just because it is leased land doesnt entitle you to be allowed to hunt on it like it is your own. In certain situations your right, the person that is leasing the land must let you go on if it is not going to be detrimental to him in any way. That being said, at the end of the day you still need to GET PERMISSION.

All you are stating walleyes, is that if you ask he must let you on his land. Thats not the issue here, the issue is about guys who didnt get permission in the first place, and if you didnt get permission in the first place I think you should get charged.

So if you go on leased land without contacting the person leasing the land and get charged, please try taking it to court because I would like to see the outcome of that one.

[Nait Hadya]

Case dismissed.

[

[Jamie]

Dispite what you all might have heard

Size does matter.
If you can show that you were only looking for some meat, I know they go a little easier on you.
If you wack some HUGE buck your going to feel a bit more pain

Jamie

[bruceba]

I believe the fines should be equal for the shooters however the guide should go up against a disiplinary board through APOS and face the rath from his peers.