Does the punishment fit the crime?

[Boreal]

Have you seen this article? A man gets his hunting license revoked for two years for shooting a cougar in a cage. It was part of a study to understand more about cougars in Washington. Part of the reason for the light punishment is that the man (I won't call him a hunter) had a license and tag. What do you think would be an appropriate response?

Redmond man who shot caged cougar loses hunting rights | The Seattle Times


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bubblehide]

I'm in Ca where mountain lions are protected, despite needed no protections, so I am not exactly sympathetic toward the cats. But, the fact that the guy knew what he was doing, and had to be aware that his actions were illegal, based on his own statements, really steers my determination on the subject. So in short, no, the punishment was much to lenient.

 

[Shooter19802003]

Well, I don't see how they can call him a poacher.....he had a license. Was it right.....meh....not really. Was it worth all that....meh....not really. I fail to see it as egregious....what is the real difference between in the cage and out? End result the same....dead cat.

 

[HookUp]

The ethics of this are just disgusting. I really don't have an issue with a two year restrictions. Big issue is with changing the punishment after being prodded by wildlife groups.

 

[Shooter19802003]

The ethics of this are just disgusting.

Really? How is this any different than trapping? Because he didn't walk up to it and strangle it while in the trap.....or hit it over the head as not to damage the pelt. I fail to see the difference.....other than it wasn't his trap.....which wasn't right.

 

[archer wapiti]

Big issue is with changing the punishment after being prodded by wildlife groups.

Agreed. Probably should've gotten 2 years to begin with for not only being an unethical dweeb, but also screwing up a study that I assume was providing some good information on not only the cats, but their prey.

However, caving to the animal rights lobby isn't good either.

 

[archer wapiti]

Really? How is this any different than trapping? Because he didn't walk up to it and strangle it while in the trap.....or hit it over the head as not to damage the pelt. I fail to see the difference.....other than it wasn't his trap.....which wasn't right.

Yes Really. In a quick scan of the Washington regs, I don't see that it's even legal to trap a cougar. If that's the case, then this is not any different to shooting a deer or elk in a cage.

 

[Bubblehide]

Really? How is this any different than trapping? Because he didn't walk up to it and strangle it while in the trap.....or hit it over the head as not to damage the pelt. I fail to see the difference.....other than it wasn't his trap.....which wasn't right.

All hunting regulations tell us what we can do. They are Prima Fascia laws. Prima Fascia laws require us all to abide by what is spelled out as legal, what we can do. You likely are used to the penal code, it tells us what we can't do, can't murder, can't steal, can't run a red light...

As such, the hunting laws spell out legal methods of take. No where in any hunting regulations (with the specific exception of trapping, where you need a trapping license that authorizes the species) does it say the use of a trap is a legal method of take for lion. Furthermore, the trap he took the animal from, was not his. So essentially, he stole the cat. It's illegal to take animals from another's trap/cage. That trap/cage just happened to belong to F&W and being in use specifically for a study. Bottom line, it doesn't matter who's trap it was. It doesn't matter that the cat was under study and wearing a collar, because if he took it legally, it would be legal, and the data would become a part of the study. But the guy poached from another's trap. It's no different that a diver taking lobster from someones lobster trap, it's poaching, it's stealing, and it's not only illegal, it's disgusting. If you don't find anything wrong with, try leaving the keys in your truck with it running and unlocked next time your at a shopping mall, and don't complain when you come out and find someone poached your truck.

 

[Shooter19802003]

Like I said....if there was any reading comprehension here....im not saying it was right, but it was a far cry from egregious. To me an egregious event would be killing a trophy buck out of season with no tag, cutting off the head and leaving it lay. I agree it amounts to theft because it wasn't in his trap. In Nevada were I trapped, you can trap big cats. Then you walk up and shoot them in the trap. Which amounts to the same thing he did here. It just wasn't his trap and obviously not in Nevada. So yes, it was theft and it was illegal....but it isn't something to get all up in arms about. He was punished for what he did according to the law......end of story. If you guys want to take up signs and protest...have at it. Because I'm sure nobody here in this crowd has ever broken the law or anything. I'm sure all of you obey all traffic laws and do the speed limit as well, because that would be breaking the law and you would never do such a thing.

 

[BroodBuster]

I jay walked once so feel free to use that fact to justify poaching???

You asked earlier what's the difference between shooting a cougar inside or outside of a cage. It's still a dead cougar. Well you seem to miss the fact one is trapped in a cage and the other you would have never seen. So I have a very hard time bridging the gap between a 100% success rate to about a 0.2% success rate.

The guys a complete dumbass and a two year ban seems about right.

 

[cocky84]

Like I said....if there was any reading comprehension here....im not saying it was right, but it was a far cry from egregious. To me an egregious event would be killing a trophy buck out of season with no tag, cutting off the head and leaving it lay. I agree it amounts to theft because it wasn't in his trap. In Nevada were I trapped, you can trap big cats. Then you walk up and shoot them in the trap. Which amounts to the same thing he did here. It just wasn't his trap and obviously not in Nevada. So yes, it was theft and it was illegal....but it isn't something to get all up in arms about. He was punished for what he did according to the law......end of story. If you guys want to take up signs and protest...have at it. Because I'm sure nobody here in this crowd has ever broken the law or anything. I'm sure all of you obey all traffic laws and do the speed limit as well, because that would be breaking the law and you would never do such a thing.

I agree. Funny how this very same action can be 100% legal in one state and then you cross an invisible line and now it totally egregious! Not defending him, or saying it oks to break laws, but lets not make this out to be something it isnt. He broke a law and he was punished for it accordingly in my opinion.

 

[Shooter19802003]

Which is all I'm saying.

 

[Bubblehide]

Like I said....if there was any reading comprehension here....

Yep, attack the responded and not their argument. The only one here making a huge deal about this is you.

This is my first response:" I'm in Ca where mountain lions are protected, despite needed no protections, so I am not exactly sympathetic toward the cats. But, the fact that the guy knew what he was doing, and had to be aware that his actions were illegal, based on his own statements, really steers my determination on the subject. "

I never said the influence of the of the animal rights group should have never been a factor, but previous to that, the penalty would have been much to lenient. This fact exhibits the courts lack of value for our wildlife, and wildlife laws, which in itself is disgusting. The fact here is that we have a guy (2 actually) that signed up as hunters, and agreed to abide by the laws and regulations of the state they had licenses in; not the laws and regulations of another state. They exhibited gross disregard for the laws and regulation. In doing, they exhibited a complete lack of integrity, ethics, morals. Clearly the guy was fully aware that what he did was not legal. Yes the cat being killed is unlikely to have any significant impact on the cat population. The cats death is fairly insignificant. But that does not lessen the perpetrators lack of integrity. His actions exhibit his moral character, and clearly the guy has a disgusting moral character. Should he be locked up and thrown in prison, probably not. Should he have his hunting rights revoked/suspended, absolutely. Clearly the guy has no restraint, and revoking his hunting rights is an appropriate penalty, unless of course he continues to exhibit disregard for our hunting laws. As such, letting him off with a minor fine simply is not justice.

If you want clarity, just ask, but to attack anyone's comprehension is just plain being an ass.

 

[Shooter19802003]

Much too lenient is your prospective......not law and i thought you were talking about abiding by the law. It is the judges digression to apply the law to punish and he did. I agree that the special interest should have not played a role. How then is that any different than what you are saying though? Just because you are one man and not a group that is unhappy. He did what he did. Unless I missed something, he didn't know it was caged until after he got up there. For all we know he had no idea it was caged when he took the shot....then after walking up on it found out otherwise. Was it right to try and cover it up...no. people are quick to judge and try to play the high and mighty card like they have lived their whole life without ever doing wrong. Is it fair to judge his character on one instance? I think not. That is like you getting a speeding ticket and then yanking your license for life because you obviously knew you were breaking the law and you obviously have complete disregard for the people and lives you out in danger. I am sure you would disagree....and so would I, but they are one in the same.....a disregard for the law.

 

[Bubblehide]

How do you walk up to a brushed in trap and not know the animal is caged? He would not have been able to see the animal, unless he was very close to the trap. He would have had to be in very close proximity of the trap to see the animals, and subsequently he would have seen the animal was in a trap, unless of course he was blind. But none of that really matters. The guy knowingly opened a trap that he was not authorized to open, and took the animal. The guy clearly lacks integrity, ethics and morals.

There are infractions of the law, and there are gross infractions of the law. What this guy did was a gross infraction, subsequently deserving of significant punishment.

I'll give you an example I was involved in decades ago. I was behind a string of cars, with the lead car spewing a tremendous amount of smoke. naturally everyone passed that car as it was also only doing about 15 MPH in a 50 MPH zone on a highway with one lane in either direction. When it came to my turn to pass, the car pull tot he right, using the paved shoulder. The highway had a solid double yellow line separating traffic in this section, but I had enough room to pass. As I get alongside the spewing car the driver began moving to the left, for no apparent reason, despite having plenty of room to not do so. I decided to continue my pass and cross the double yellow line since braking and getting behind the spewing car posed a danger as it significantly limited my vision. A Highway Patrol Officer was behind me, and pulled me over and ticketed me. I fought the ticket. Clearly I violated the law. But I won the case because I also complied with a law that over rides the law I was cited for. In short, we have a legal obligation to avoid an accident. In the situation I was in, I made the most reasonable choice, as such the law was on my side.

The guy in the OP's story, failed to make a reasonable choice, subsequently he should be punished accordingly, not given a slap on the hand.

 

[Murdy]

Generally, a judge cannot go back and increase a punishment after a trial is over (or plea is entered) and sentence is imposed. I suspect the suspension was an administrative act rather than coming from a court.

 

[Bubblehide]

Generally, a judge cannot go back and increase a punishment after a trial is over (or plea is entered) and sentence is imposed. I suspect the suspension was an administrative act rather than coming from a court.

Yep, the suspension likely came from F&W, as it falls under their jurisdiction. They would not have imposed the suspension until after the conviction. So I question if the animal rights group had anything to do with the suspension. Bottom line is that the animal rights group should not have influenced the outcome of the suspension.

Thanks for making the distinction, it helps clarify some of the case!

 

[Shooter19802003]

See that is the thing, I didn't read anywhere that he knew BEFORE he shot that the animal was caged. Yes, he obviously knew afterward. So now What? Do you leave a dead critter in there? I'm not saying he was right. He should have reported it after it happened. But to just leave it lay after the fact isn't any better. How he handled the situation was wrong and I won't dispute that. But that is all it is.....unless he knew BEFORE hand that it was caged...and I didn't read that anywhere. Even then, I can't call it egregious. Killing a bus full of kids is egregious....not a cat in a cage. An act that is ok in other states. So yes he broke the law....but that is it. This wasn't some haneous vile, taboo act. It was a normal act if in another state.....if it was his own trap. It was just some dude breaking the law.....thats it.

 

[dreamingbig]

Yes Really. In a quick scan of the Washington regs, I don't see that it's even legal to trap a cougar. If that's the case, then this is not any different to shooting a deer or elk in a cage.

No trapping allowed in WA thanks to our liberal voters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shooter19802003]

I get that it is illegal in that leftist haven. That still is a far cry from egregious or the like.