Is poaching truly this prevalent?

[JeffRaines]

I don’t think it’s a new thing, I think it’s leftover culture from the past. What I don’t understand at all, is how can someone be proud of a big critter that they killed if they had to cheat to get it? It seriously makes no sense to me. They seem extremely proud of their big bucks or bulls that they had to cheat to kill.

It takes zero talent to kill big critters if you don’t care about the rules, killing them within the rule structure is the hard part. There are a lot of gross degenerates that try to convince people that they are good hunters, but they never will be, they will always have to cheat to have success…. That seems like it would eventually wear on you, knowing you are inadequate, knowing you can’t do it on a level playing field

When I first started hunting, I had a coworker offer me to come over to their house and shoot a deer. He claimed they came up all the time, and if I waited until the night fell they were easy pickings and I’d get my first deer in one night. This was exactly my response. Dude, if I shoot something illegally how can I proudly display it?

I had other people I worked with that I heard(second hand) would harvest bull elk in a spike only unit and remove points to make them spikes.

Yet another guy I worked with at a different place bragged about how they’d drive around in a pickup truck after midnight and shoot elk and deer with bows off of farmers properties. Dude even said they’d wear eyepatches over one eye to keep it dark adapted. You’re this interested in doing the shit illegally, why not put that effort toward doing it legally?

At more than one place I’ve heard of people keeping an affidavit on them so they could hunt their wife/kids tags. I checked on this afterwards and of course it’s illegal.

Listen, I’m not perfect or anything… and if someone were poaching because they didn’t have food or money to buy food… I still don’t necessarily agree with it but it’s a lot easier to look past. None of these guys were that, all were gainfully employed and paid fairly for the work they do.

 

[Bachto]

How many DUI arrests involved no accident?
How many of those killed or injured were the impaired driver with no others involved?

Regardless of whether one has alcohol in his system while causing injury or property damage to others they are responsible
Just having alcohol in one’s system
and not harming anyone else and being punished is pre-crime.

There were 44,447 gun related deaths in America, 2024

Oh, you have a gun in your possession? Gee, you might kill someone. We need a law. MAGO ( Mothers Against Gun Owners) can lead the charge.

No victim= No crime

You can just say you have a DUI without typing this whole thing out.

 

[Deadspace]

You can just say you have a DUI without typing this whole thing out.

I’d say multiple

 

[WoodlandCritter]

You can just say you have a DUI without typing this whole thing out.

Its not just a DUI, it was a valant act of civil disobedience against an unjust infringement on the civil rights of all Americans. (The right to t-bone a family of 4)

 

[mt terry d]

Nice try not really
70 years old. None. Ever.

I'm fine if you'd like to make it a hanging offense if you cause an accident
while DUI. Or drawn & quartered in the public square.
I don't care one way or the other. But if someone isn't harming
someone else or their property it's not violating any natural law or anyone
else's rights, just an arbitrary regulation.

Penalizing for pre-crime is pre-crime, you can't pick and choose.
Well you can if you want to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Smithb9841]

Nice try not really
70 years old. None. Ever.

I'm fine if you'd like to make it a hanging offense if you cause an accident
while DUI. Or drawn & quartered in the public square.
I don't care one way or the other. But if someone isn't harming
someone else or their property it's not violating any natural law or anyone
else's rights, just an arbitrary regulation.

Penalizing for pre-crime is pre-crime, you can't pick and choose.
Well you can if you want to be intellectually dishonest.

So if you drive a 110mph in the wrong lane it’s ok as long as you don’t hit someone?

 

[WoodlandCritter]

So if you drive a 110mph in the wrong lane it’s ok as long as you don’t hit someone?

A-ok. Just like the "I'm-not-hitting-you" bit is fine because you're not violating the rights of a sovereign citizen