Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Is Nuge a poacher?

stupid law if thats the case. and a bunch liberals, that part I get. Damn shame its illegal to....

Very old news and yes he broke the law. In SE AK the law has long been "draw blood and you are done." It was expanded to Kodiak bears at least 15 years ago.

Ted is eliding the obvious printing of the law in the book.He was not the only or first charged. millions to fight a misdemeanors? Bullshit! He was charged in Federal Courts and his repeat offender status was why...

He always reads the regs......

Except when he doesn’t.

thats a good one. Laughed on that part in the video.

Its a stupid law I'll stand by that even if Art rips me a new one. LOL. BUT I get it. Must be a reason for it.

I've never hunted SE AK and have never read that part of the book. One should read before they go.

And this damn ever need to film and take pictures and post things.... I don't get it much. The less you put out there the less you odds of making a mistake.

That said I'd love to see the video, but have not googled it. Arrow bouncing off is kind of weird, maybe it never actually touched the bear but a limb in front of. I"ve seen that on elk 2 times...

I know guides typically enforce the blood you are tagged thing. And I don't even care for that, having more than a few animals under the belt every now and then one is nicked that bleeds a bit but none the worse for wear. To be charged for that is stupid again, IMHO.

Bottom line stupid or not, law is the law and its up to you to know and follow. Don't like it don't hunt that area or state etc... Fairly simple IMHO.

And then if people would follow at least 2S things would be better generally.

I disagree,I spent 100,000 in legal fees in a case that I settled. I was told by my lawyers that the cost of a lengthy trial would be several times that.

Very old news and yes he broke the law. In SE AK the law has long been "draw blood and you are done." It was expanded to Kodiak bears at least 15 years ago.

Ted is eliding the obvious printing of the law in the book.He was not the only or first charged. millions to fight a misdemeanors? Bullshit! He was charged in Federal Courts and his repeat offender status was why...

I don’t like the word poacher for his violation though. That’s a word that should be reserved for more serious violations. He screwed up, got caught, and paid the price. In his defense, it was a brand new law that most were not aware of.

It's obviously political. Nothing would have come of it if those leftists would not have kicked up a storm.

Interesting how he has been the only one ever charged under this law.

I know a lot of people here don't like Ted Nugent but this was obviously an honest mistake and now he is not allowed to hunt in the U.S for two years. Are you kidding me?

BTW don't think this kind of thing can't happen to any one of us. We have all heard of gun owners getting in serious trouble over some little technicality. This should give us all an idea on how they are planning to use those red flag laws.

My memory tells me it was not a new law in SE, but I could be wrong. I know when it came into Kodiak it had been the case in SE for some time...

Very old news and yes he broke the law. In SE AK the law has long been "draw blood and you are done." It was expanded to Kodiak bears at least 15 years ago. .

Does SE AK have its own set of regulations? The reason I ask is I hunted around Nome in 2011. I read the regulations I got that year cover to cover. (Some really silly stuff in there.) I never saw a law in there that said if you draw blood your done. Maybe I missed it.

If he wasn't doing this stuff for profit, I'd say give the guy a break. Nugent is a professional and plays the high profile TV super star game. The standard should be higher, the highest, really. It's not like Alaska passed the law the day before and he was already in the woods. It's not enough to claim it as an innocent mistake/oversight, not when you're representing an industry at that level. It shouldn't go without mention that Nugent's actions reflect on the rest of us hunters who are not an industry—on all of us who hunt for our own reasons.

The ironic part I posted above.

I’ll disagree, Brian.

The regs should apply equally (ir)regardless of who is affected. Nice should be no different than a resident.

The ironic part I posted above.

Regarding whether Nugent is a poacher, I'm not prepare to answer. I will say that the act of poaching in and of itself requires intent.

Still trying to wrap my head around an arrow hitting a rib and doing a 180

Like you have said before, so many other things can be involved. Same with this. Like I've said that arrow may never have even hit the bear. Hell if it didn't have blood on it why did they even look. An arrow cuts flesh IE if only the broadhead, its going to have blood, hair, fat etc... on it.

I'm not saying this to brag at all, but I quit counting deer/pigs taken with archery gear in the 90s. I was only born in the 60s. I was over 100 at that point. So I have put a few arrows through, past, over, under a few animals.

Animals CAN be quick enough to divert the direction of an arrow as it enters. I've seen plenty duck/whirl/move before an arrow gets there. I've seen arrows deflect off unseen and stupidly enough, seen things.

Like I said earlier I have not even looked for the purported video.

I have seen arrows shot from higher up, aimed down, IE out of tripods and the like, end up exiting HIGHER than the entry wound. I saw one once enter what should have been a perfect basically broadside lung shot get tweaked somehow and end up breaking the neck of the deer and exiting the TOP of the neck.

All that said the argument here is not if it was illegal. It was. Plain and simple. He was wrong, and he got caught. I dont' care for Ted much. One of our nephews loves him. I don't see the attraction. Loud mouthed and so.... I BUT he was wrong, and he was caught and paid the price.

What I would have done after the fact if I was offended, is to seek the intent of the law, heck I might have had an attorney seek it before the court date. WHY is the law in effect. What is the purpose, what is the goal of such law. And follow that up with was the intent of the results broken or not. IE what I'm assuming is to prevent a lost game animal rotting in the woods and not simply going out and continuing to shoot animals until you can find/recover one. I"d say the video should have...shown the animal was not worse for wear and that a fracas with another bear would have been likely much worse of a wound. End intent would be more to change/clarify/remove said law.

That being said wildlife laws are TOUGH. We have antler restrictions in TX. Goal is to allow bucks to mature more before being harvested so we would get more does bred. IT did that. Plus a LOT of other positives to the herd down there. That said it does not allow for the harvest of older bucks that don't meet the criteria of the restrictions. IE width. If you are trash antlers passing on your DNA and you never get to 13 inches inside spread, you cannot ever be harvested/removed from the DNA pool. There is almost NO way to write the law better. Maybe but not certainly anyway. Thankfully most of the local wardens more or less say if you are sure of age, then do what you have to do and just lets not talk about it again. Makes sense to me because folks that are mindful of quality know more about their deer than the wardens do actually.

Really need to make time to read those rules if you are going to whatever area.

I know the fishing rules on the Talkeetna/Su folks would ask me. My answer is rules. I carry a book in my left back pocket and an attorney in my right back pocket. Its not quite that bad but there are a LOT of rules.. and they change from one side of the river to the other etc... one creek to the next. One goes 1/4 mile up a creek, another 2 miles, but where do you measure the start? Oh they have GPS points... LMAO but to be right you have to follow to the T. Suspect as much as I laugh about the GPS points at least they are black and white so to speak.

After all that, there isn't a single person out there that has not broken a law at some point. Not intentionally likely for most of us, but its been done. Again why folks demand to publish tons of their own stuff publicly is beyond me. Yes I put a few pics on facebook, not to brag but to show folks that cannot make the trip, whats around up here.

For micromanage and convoluted fishing regs, it's hard impossible to "beat" the Kenai.

Different laws across the state for many different things, especially methods and means of hunting and fishing.

Fixt it for ya...

Still trying to wrap my head around an arrow hitting a rib and doing a 180

I recently asked a Fairbanks enforcement Trooper about punching your tag if you believe you shot a moose, but did not recover it. It took him two days to chase down what he believed was the correct answer.

According to him it is not illegal to keep hunting moose if you shot another moose and did not recover it. He said it used to be illegal, but attorneys got involved in having it changed. Reason I asked him is because I knew a guy whos two kids shot and lost two moose the last two years.

One needs to be well versed in keeping up to date on the current regs for the species one is hunting in a given game unit. When in doubt, call Fish and Game and get an answer.

Personally, I don't know why there has to be a law against it. I was brought up knowing if you shoot and animal you punch your tag whether you recover it or not. I taught my children that and make it clear to any one I hunt with. Compared to many I have had a mediocre hunting career, but I believe that approach to hunting is why in 54 years I have never shot and lost a big game animal. I am disgusted with those that think it is ok to loose an animal and keep hunting for that species in the same season.

I also think if you are an international hunting celebrity and filming hunting shows you should know the rules an, just like everyone else is expected to. What was his intent, that is now a credible defense, right?

Google ted nugent California and see what comes up.

OK....I did....and have to say that he pleaded no contest to two misdemeanors, neither diminished him in my eyes.

I spent 25 years enforcing the fish and game laws and I had an unhappy experience with him.

I spent 25 years enforcing the fish and game laws and I had an unhappy experience with him.

You mean there are only two things you dislike about him?

His face?

Art you could not possibly be more of an opinionated sack of shït if you tried. But in your defense lots of guys here have forgotten about you ripping people off and loosing your mod spot. LOL.

That dont sound right.

There was a F&G bio that shot a moose, that was not recovered. A day or two later, shoots a moose he thinks is the one that was wounded. It wasn't..

Ticket and bit of chit storm was the result. This in the last year or three.

Art you could not possibly be more of an opinionated sack of shït if you tried. But in your defense lots of guys here have forgotten about you ripping people off and loosing your mod spot. LOL.

Cat scratch fever?

I can see differing laws. For example, if you can take 5 black bears, whats the deal with loosing one if it happens? But if its a moose where there are few, or a brown bear where you get one every 4 years or such...

Obviously I hate to loose any animal. And I lost a deer last year. If we were in an area I could have used my dog, IE way to many burrs and he simply could not walk anymore... but we looked for that deer for a full day before we had to be back at work and found him the next weekend. Made me sick to my stomach. But it happened. In our case we need to take more deer than we do to control numbers so did not tag and were not required to.

Brings another question. One you can't legislate in words IMHO... well you can but it ends up being this one drop of blood law. So what if you KNOW there it is not a vital hit and will recover. It happens to folks. In fact sometimes you see the animal the next day or days and cannot get another shot. That happens. Animals receive far worse wounds at times due to nature and its cruelty.

I am not up on all legalities but another thing comes to mind. In Teds case mentioned here, if AK did not charge him with a violation, and thats what I think I recall reading from Art on this thread, then how can feds charge him with a Lacey act type violation. IE AK was ok and nothing illegal happened or they would have charged him. Feds can come in( would not surprise me as I worked for low level .gov until I got sick and tired of how crooked or not caring it was) and decide he did violate a STATE law even though not charged, so we'll charge him. Or can the feds charge against a state law first, then follow up with their ad ons?

Again not really taking sides so much here, just throwing out thoughts.

I've had the exposure to be able to shoot deer that were shot hours before, days before and weeks before. Doing it mostly out of curiosity. Amazing what animals can survive. Like even a hole through both lungs. Just flat amazing.

Bottom line if you don't like a law you have three choices. Follow it. Break it, get it changed. Easiest is to follow. Its what we do.
And one has to realize the fish and game folks are not perfect in anyones eyes, but they have a super tough job to do. Heck I'm not perfect either so its the way it is. We and they do their level best most of the time, and one has to applaud them for that.

What a dumbazz if so. I'd take the state before the feds any day. Chances of a bit less corruption if it was there at all.

I spent 25 years enforcing the fish and game laws and I had an unhappy experience with him.

The Nuge and I are from the same era. Would not bother answering the door if he showed up and immediately switch channels with a screen appearance. Could be he has seen God, but his history and morals are well embedded in my memory banks. I'm not big on forgiving.

I'd take the state before the feds any day. Chances of a bit less corruption if it was there at all.

I have guided a number of hunters who knew him and asked if we were interested in having him as a hunter as he wanted a brown bear.
From everything I knew and what I had gathered from talking with his friends I decided we were full.

No idea, but Sharp Things (Ron Kulas) is !