This is just one example of why to steer clear of this poaching, trespassing bottom feeder..his reputation down in Sonora was already poor.

http://www.coueswhitetail.com/...-sonoran-outfitters/

He might be the sorriest excuse for an outfitter I have ever seen. Glad you posted this

That sucks! I am betting he is never able to collect. Just think of Larry Heathington.

Drummond, why don't the Mexican authorities go after the outfitter for killing a ram w/o a license....

90 rifle permits issued.
20 export permits for trophies.
poor success rate too.
Terrible tales concerning this man...

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
Drummond, why don't the Mexican authorities go after the outfitter for killing a ram w/o a license....

I have no idea. Without having all of the details there is no way to answer that. It may have had to do with a cites permit or a tag or a combination of the two

Guys, I have brought this up in the past and will do so again, Todd used to work for….wait for it….this is just so rich…. JEFF BLAIR!

Thats a true story fellas

Todd threatened to sue me a year or two ago because I told you guys on AR that his guides trespassed on me and I told him to get after it and sue me. Anyway, he has been on this website in the past, maybe the troll will crawl out from under his bridge and comment.

Drummond:

Was he an employee or an outfitter who used Blair to book hunts?

quote:

Todd used to work for….wait for it….this is just so rich…. JEFF BLAIR!

Learned from one of the best huh?


.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Drummond:

Was he an employee or an outfitter who used Blair to book hunts?

He was an employee of Jeff Blair's and I'm sure Blair sent him some clients but I'm not 100% sure on that

I do find it interesting that Todd Rice is who took LH to finally kill a desert bighorn.

Really. Birds of a feather!

Wonder if this is his uncle

Absolutely shocking

And this Rice guy had the cahones' to stand in front of his booth at DSC and solicit business. I wish I would have known about this at that time. Can someone report this guy to DSC to see if they will continue to allow cheats and thieves to display?

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
Wonder if this is his uncle

No, the uncle in question is another individual, Randy Cramer, the thread on coueswhitetail had 3 , count 'em, THREE people on that one thread that have been screwed by this outfitter. He should be in a Mexican jail and should THEN be tried for Lacey violations.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
Wonder if this is his uncle

No, the uncle in question is another individual, Randy Cramer, the thread on coueswhitetail had 3 , count 'em, THREE people on that one thread that have been screwed by this outfitter. He should be in a Mexican jail and should THEN be tried for Lacey violations.

Except in the 3 cases of these guys not getting there Sheep, there is ZERO violation of the Lacey Act?

What this outfitter did is pretty bad, Drum knows him a lot better than I do - but you can't have a Lacey Act violation without importing/transporting across state lines - a trophy that has some associated illegality.

They all killed sheep. There is a real question as to whether the outfitter had the required legal permits, if that is the case, which is extremely likely then the Lacey Act was violated. Your interpretation that "you can't have a Lacey Act violation without importing/transporting across state lines - a trophy that has some associated illegality." is absolutely wrong. Frankly, it's amazing that you would take this position given the business you're in. Why do you think there is such an ongoing discussion of what hunters do/shot/killed in Africa, whether there were the correct permits/licenses/etc, whether they were in the right area, etc., even when there was no import intended? Answer: American hunters are scared of being charged with a Lacey violation, and they have a right to be concerned. The damn law is ridiculously open ended and makes it the hunters problem to know FOREIGN laws and even that their outfitter is obeying all of them. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

Bold emphasis added

quote:

Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.

I have been told that Todd Rice has been banned for life by Ovis.

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
I have been told that Todd Rice has been banned for life by Ovis.

I bet that really upset that scumbutt.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
They all killed sheep. There is a real question as to whether the outfitter had the required legal permits, if that is the case, which is extremely likely then the Lacey Act was violated. Your interpretation that "you can't have a Lacey Act violation without importing/transporting across state lines - a trophy that has some associated illegality." is absolutely wrong. Frankly, it's amazing that you would take this position given the business you're in. Why do you think there is such an ongoing discussion of what hunters do/shot/killed in Africa, whether there were the correct permits/licenses/etc, whether they were in the right area, etc., even when there was no import intended? Answer: American hunters are scared of being charged with a Lacey violation, and they have a right to be concerned. The damn law is ridiculously open ended and makes it the hunters problem to know FOREIGN laws and even that their outfitter is obeying all of them. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

Bold emphasis added

quote:

Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.

Gatogordo - I didn't say it had to be across state lines, that would insinuate its already in the states, and that's definitely not what I said.

I said the Feds cannot prosecute for the Lacey Act until Todd would attempt to bring/ship the trophies into the USA, from a foreign country - without a proper permit. The Feds have no jurisdiction over what happens in a foreign country in this case, at least not as I have been told it directly by a USFWS rep. If one chooses to hunt illegally in a foreign land, but does nothing to try to bring the trophies into the USA, they cannot charge/prosecute for supposed violation. They have no jurisdiction to do so. So far, he has not tried to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase said trophies, nor has he attempted interstate/foreign commerce with said trophies either (to my knowledge).

If your interpretation of said law is that he (outfitter) violated it simply by hunting without a permit - the Feds wouldn't even have jurisdiction to confirm/deny the validity of that, much less anything else. What are they gonna do, subpoena Mexican landowner permits/ game dept records, etc?

Now Gato, if I am wrong then I of course stand corrected. It would most definitely not be the first time I have been wrong. I am not taking a position as you put it, I am stating the "Lacey Act" as I have been told, that's all. I will try to get that clarified again. If I am told differently, I will let ya know.

Gato - A couple of interesting things here, just confusing to be honest. The first couple examples I found are what I am referring to/been told. Sorry, they gave no examples exactly what we are talking about here.

The 3rd lends evidence to your position too. But it does say that it is not so clear from the statute
whether violations of foreign regulations may also be the basis for a Lacey Act violation.

Frankly, I guess its best to not become involved in any of these sort of things if at all possible.


Example12 1 (Section 3372(a)(1))
Assume a person has killed a hummingbird in the state of Oklahoma. That is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA), a federal law.13 However, it is not a violation of the Lacey Act. Even though wildlife was taken in
violation of a federal law, that wildlife was not then imported, exported, transported, sold, received, acquired, or
purchased, as required for a Lacey Act violation.

Assume a person has killed a deer in violation of Wisconsin’s hunting laws. The deer is field dressed and consumed
without leaving the state or entering commerce. There is no violation of the Lacey Act because there is no interstate
commerce.

While the language clearly includes state regulatory violations as a predicate act to a Lacey Act
violation (“in violation of any law or regulation of any State”), it is not so clear from the statute
whether violations of foreign regulations may also be the basis for a Lacey Act violation. Courts,
however, have held that foreign regulations may be the foundation for a charge. The Eleventh
Circuit reviewed congressional intent before holding that violations of foreign regulations and
other legally binding provisions are also a basis for making a Lacey Act enforcement case.15 The
Ninth Circuit found that Congress used the term “foreign law” so it would encompass the many
forms that foreign legal edicts may take.16

Rednecks can get away with murder. Apart from having no dental records all their DNA is the same.

Aaron is correct in that there has to be an attempt or actual movement of illegal entities (animal parts, plants, etc.) across state lines or from another country into the US for a person to be cited under the Lacey Act. The Act deals with illegal interstate commerce or something coming from a foreign country into the US or an attempt to do so. The USFWS can't cite that guy in another country because he violated something there or I can guarantee you they would have already done so with the number of complaints registered against him. The only way they would have jurisdiction is if he attempted to bring those sheep horns or ship them into the US because they were taken in violation of the law in the originating country. It would appear he's smart enough to be a hell of a scammer, but is not going to do anything the USFWS can get him on over here!

I'm also LMAO at the fairgame comment!!!

Wanna bet?

I'm going to repeat this quote, which is from the US government site summing up the Lacey Act as revised in 2008. My emphasis added:

quote:

Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.

Seems pretty damn clear to me. How you and Aaron can argue against the clear language above is interesting, but not factual. Note the phrases "acquire", "foreign commerce", and "in violation of State or foreign law."

Regardless, it's really bad.

One problem the 3 hunters have is that IF there were not valid permits/licenses/whatever for those sheep, then they are actually subject to the Lacey Act as well.

Of course, in reality, the Feds are not going to spend much time on peccadilloes in foreign lands UNLESS they are really out to get someone. But, sadly, the US F&W is no longer hunter friendly, to say the least.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Wanna bet?

I'm going to repeat this quote, which is from the US government site summing up the Lacey Act as revised in 2008. My emphasis added:

quote:

Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.

Seems pretty damn clear to me. How you and Aaron can argue against the clear language above is interesting, but not factual. Note the phrases "acquire", "foreign commerce", and "in violation of State or foreign law."

Gato - Ok bro, if being right is that important, then you're right. Good heavens man, settle down. I was simply stating how I have been told it by USFWS reps directly, and how it reads in the examples I gave above from the "Lacey Act" itself. Maybe they too are wrong, and perhaps you should turn all of this over to the USFWS, maybe they will seek the Lacey Act violation as you suggest?

Definition of Interstate Commerce - interstate commerce n. commercial trade, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another, regulated by the federal government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the Constitution.

Definition of Foreign Commerce - an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) Where's the interchange of goods/commodities between different countries here?

No where has it been said, seen or shown that the outfitter tried to interchange, trade, move, exchange, import/export said trophies, meaning he's not violated interstate or foreign commerce, as defined in the definitions above.

Simply violating a STATE/FEDERAL LAW - as outlined AGAIN in these two examples below is NOT a violation of the lacey act either. I did not make up these examples or definitions, I simply copied/pasted them.

Example12 1 (Section 3372(a)(1))
Assume a person has killed a hummingbird in the state of Oklahoma. That is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), a federal law.13 However, it is not a violation of the Lacey Act. Even though wildlife was taken in violation of a federal law, that wildlife was not then imported, exported, transported, sold, received, acquired, or purchased, as required for a Lacey Act violation.

Assume a person has killed a deer in violation of Wisconsin’s hunting laws. The deer is field dressed and consumed without leaving the state or entering commerce. There is no violation of the Lacey Act because there is no interstate
commerce.

As Drummond states, and regardless of a Lacey Act violation or not - the outfitter has clearly "violated" the clients in these cases. That's the real shame, at least to me anyway.

I also believe were the feds to try to charge/convict the "hunters" of violating the Lacey Act as you also suggest by there not being an actual valid license/permit (if that was the case) the authorities would first need to prove "intent", on behalf of the hunters, correct? Not to mention, none of the other criteria above has been met either?

Again, I feel really bad for these guys - it is a shame for sure.

Aaron---I was involved in law enforcement for three years in the US military and as a state LE Investigator for 30+ years. The statute quoted above in two parts is very clear and strictly involves MOVEMENT or ATTEMPTED MOVEMENT of violative animal parts, plants, etc. between states or the US and a foreign country. It is worded very simple with very minimal words, unlike what is usually the case with laws and regulations, LOL! If Gato can't understand it, he needs to slow down and look at the key words that he put up in bold in HIS post! The entire Lacey Act strictly involves COMMERCE between states or another country and in this case Rice is off the hook with the Feds unless he's dumber than a stump and tries to move those horns into the US.

I admit, at first glance it did look as if Lacey act could apply to illegal hunting. But, you have to strip away all the "non-hunting" scenarios to make it easier to understand.

quote:

Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.

The key word is "involving" an illegally harvested specie in interstate commerce. Look at it this way. Take away the illegal flower picking and fishing and leave the hunting portions intact.

quote:

Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import wildlife taken 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving wildlife taken in violation of State or foreign law.

For the most part, I've always thought the Lacy Act had to involve transport over state or foreign lines as well, BUT, it was explained to me in the following manner whereby the transport portion may not be required, and Gato being correct. Not saying this is 100% accurate, but in the same way Wendell simplified the statement, let's try this on, playing devil's advocate here and all:

Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to acquire wildlife that are taken in foreign commerce involving any wildlife taken in violation of foreign law.

The way I interpret this, the successful "hunting" of these sheep is a method of "acquiring" said sheep, and the fact that the US hunter "paid" a Mexican outfitter to conduct the hunt means that "foreign commerce" was involved, while doing so without a valid permit is obviously "in violation of foreign law"! Under that scenario, the hunters could be in violation of the Lacy Act. Honestly, I don't see it as being too much of a stretch for an aggressive prosecutor to take that approach.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
For the most part, I've always thought the Lacy Act had to involve transport over state or foreign lines as well, BUT, it was explained to me in the following manner whereby the transport portion may not be required, and Gato being correct. Not saying this is 100% accurate, but in the same way Wendell simplified the statement, let's try this on, playing devil's advocate here and all:

Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to acquire wildlife that are taken in foreign commerce involving any wildlife taken in violation of foreign law.

The way I interpret this, the successful "hunting" of these sheep is a method of "acquiring" said sheep, and the fact that the US hunter "paid" a Mexican outfitter to conduct the hunt means that "foreign commerce" was involved, while doing so without a valid permit is obviously "in violation of foreign law"! Under that scenario, the hunters could be in violation of the Lacy Act. Honestly, I don't see it as being too much of a stretch for an aggressive prosecutor to take that approach.

Exactly.

So you guys are saying every time a non resident comes to another state and commits a game violation they ate getting charged with the Lacey act? Funny that's not what's really happening to them, I guess fish and game wardens are interpreting the law wrong too.

It's somewhat ambiguous for sure, probably on purpose......so they can hang your azzz if they decide they want to, and make it "fit" the wording of the law. I hope someone gets Rice's attention.

Don't matter what us "Lay-person"
define the law as.
If you stir up the USFWS and THEY will
decide what the law says.
Bottom line...

"Beware of Todd Rice,Sonoran Outfitters"

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Clark:
So you guys are saying every time a non resident comes to another state and commits a game violation they ate getting charged with the Lacey act? Funny that's not what's really happening to them, I guess fish and game wardens are interpreting the law wrong too.

No, that doesn't qualify as "interstate" commerce, if you read the summation.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
It's somewhat ambiguous for sure, probably on purpose......so they can hang your azzz if they decide they want to, and make it "fit" the wording of the law. I hope someone gets Rice's attention.

Right. It's a broad definition for a reason.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Rednecks can get away with murder. Apart from having no dental records all their DNA is the same.

That's funny! What do you know about rednecks in Zambia? Have we spread that far?


.

Gato & Todd - Ya guys, I certainly see what you are saying too. Frankly, I would expect as one of my quotes above highlights clearly - it could possibly be open to interpretation, or of course, the desire to actually push it by the USFWS. A real shame IMO, but very possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
It's somewhat ambiguous for sure, probably on purpose......so they can hang your azzz if they decide they want to, and make it "fit" the wording of the law. I hope someone gets Rice's attention.

Right. It's a broad definition for a reason.

I expect you are both correct!

http://youtu.be/WkCHv1biQBI


UNREAL!