This is a good reminder to read the regulations when you're hunting outside of your home state. My guess is that he had no idea he was violating the law...

Ted Nugent Poaching Conviction

The issue of this case being a serious or minor violation isn't really all that important. Ted supposedly lives and breathes hunting. He comes across as a law-and-order guy and is no dummy. Why can't people of his stature take the time to learn the laws of the states where they hunts?

It's curious how so many high profile, big-name trophy bowhunters (Noel Feather, Tink Nathan, Roger Rothaar, among others) sooner or later end up getting busted for poaching.

The deal he was busted on is one that I've never heard of anywhere and that's if you draw blood you are done up there, regardless of whether you find the animal and tag it or not. I believe he was hunting with an outfitter, so they should have know what the law was, just like the guy Nugent was with when he got screwed in CA a couple years ago. Ted is a celebrity in the spotlight and needs to cover everything himself to stay away from stuff like this happening any more. He was upfront when it was found that he shouldn't have continued hunting and tagged the bear he brought home. What he did was a violation and he paid the price just in the poor publicity alone. 2 times I'll forgive him, but I better not read of a third one!

+1

Yup, it says as much about slob outfitters and guides as it does Ted. No more, no less. The guide and outfitter were accomplises in this and should have their licenses pulled as well.

quote:

Originally posted by talentrec:
This is a good reminder to read the regulations when you're hunting outside of your home state. My guess is that he had no idea he was violating the law...

Ted Nugent Poaching Conviction

Why would that be your guess?
It wouldn't be mine.

Banning him from talking would be an appropriate punishment IMHO.

How many folks on here go on a hunt out of their home state and don't check out the game laws in the location they are going hunting? I ain't talking about digging thru a states law library. but every state/province I have hunted, has a basic FAQ as it were list of game laws that hunters can read and understand.

Change it from just regular person off the street to a "Celebrity" and a chance for National/International exposure for an outfitter/guides operation, and things can and do go sideways sometimes.

quote:

Originally posted by conifer:

quote:

Originally posted by talentrec:
This is a good reminder to read the regulations when you're hunting outside of your home state. My guess is that he had no idea he was violating the law...

Ted Nugent Poaching Conviction

Why would that be your guess?
It wouldn't be mine.

Simply because I've never heard of any state that requires you to punch your tag if you wound and lose an animal. If he'd read the regulations, he would have known that, but it is possible that he just assumed that he could take another one. His outfitter definitely should have known the law and not let him shoot the second bear. Regardless of whether or not he knew it was illegal, it's bad press for all hunters.

Is this his 3rd or 4th conviction?

How many before we don't defend him? I read the regs, yes even in Alaska. 13 states and 3 provinces and still I haven't even been charged. I imagine there are many with more experience and no charges.
What are our standards of conduct? I think my days of defending this OJ are over.

A ban on hunting in Alaska should include the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact member states (37) include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Just to point out an observation. I am not siding on this at all.

I lived in Alaska for 24 years and never heard of such a law.

It's the law of ODDS...the more you do something, the more likely something is going to go wrong or you miss a detail. If you hunted a different state every week you would likely miss something written in the law too. Besides, with him being so vocal against the Obama regime he is VERY likely to be pursued by every badge carrying mongrel out there...being watched like a bunch of vultures over a roadkill. We need more people like Ted to keep the bozos that want to strip you of your guns at bay. Believe me, Obama and Holder WANT your guns and they will stop at NOTHING to get them. If he gets a second term you will clearly get it then. Nuff said.

A good reason not to video your hunts and post them on the net.

Because if one does make a mistake and break the law you have convicted yourself.

This is an interesting case and I wonder exactly how the Alaska law that Ted broke is written.

As far as I know every state has some kind of a law against abandoning a carcass or wasting edible portions of game. But in order to break such a law the animal first has to be dead. What happens if the wound is superficial and the animal is able to escape and eventually recover?

Following up on shots and making every effort to recover wounded game is a matter of ethics. At what point does it become a legal matter? In Alaska, if your broadhead cuts a notch in a critter's ear or your rifle bullet knocks a point off the rack do you consider your tag filled?

As for the outfitter, I think back to a guided hunt I went on. Just as we drove off the highway and towards the ranch gate the guide stopped the truck. He said "I've got to have a little talk with you before we go on the property. #1 if you drink any beer or booze, you're done for the day. We go right back to town. #2 We have a no f!@#-up policy. If you do anything stupid or shoot anything you're not supposed to shoot we call the law. No discussion, we call the warden, that's it. I'm not going risk my life, license or lease." And that was for a low-dollar cow elk hunt. I would think that a high-end outfitter in Alaska would have some sort of standards.

If he was on a guided hunt, IMO, it was the guide's responsibility to keep him inside of the law. I understand it's something of a shared responsibility but where was the guide?
Wonder if this is because of his stated dislike of Barry.

Don't forget his latest rant about being in jail or dead if Obama is reelected.

Ted has become an embarrassment to the NRA and hunters everywhere. He needs to be dropped from the NRA board immediately.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodrow S:
It's the law of ODDS...the more you do something, the more likely something is going to go wrong or you miss a detail. If you hunted a different state every week you would likely miss something written in the law too. Besides, with him being so vocal against the Obama regime he is VERY likely to be pursued by every badge carrying mongrel out there...being watched like a bunch of vultures over a roadkill. We need more people like Ted to keep the bozos that want to strip you of your guns at bay. Believe me, Obama and Holder WANT your guns and they will stop at NOTHING to get them. If he gets a second term you will clearly get it then. Nuff said.

I disagree, when I went on my brown bear hunt in Alaska last year, my outfitter, John Peterson, told me as I was signing my liscence that if I drew blood my hunt was done, so I'd better make my first shot count and be willing to go in after my bear. Either Ted wasn't told the same thing which really falls more on his outfitter and guide in my mind, or he was told and it's both of their faults.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sta...ations/pdfs/bear.pdf

Page 25, even highlighted.

Ted is Ted, either you like him or you dont. He has been pulling off stunts since back in the 60's. Just out of curiosity, whom else in the spotlight supports hunting? Guess we could all just keep quiet and go along our merry little way.

The regs are very clear and straightforward: The quote below is from the regs and the bold emphasis is not mine - the text is bolded in the regs. This provision has been in place for about 5yrs.

“In Units 1-5, and in Unit 8, bears wounded by a hunter count as the bag limit for the regulatory year. “Wounded” means there is a sign of blood or other sign that the bear has been hit by a hunting projectile.”

You can see this at the bottom of page 25. The quote above is highlighted in yellow.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sta...ations/pdfs/bear.pdf

In addition the regs are clear on another point - the hunter is responsible for knowing and following the regs, even if they are using the services of a guide.

There are several folks "In The Spot Light" that support hunting and gun ownership all you have to do is look around. Why does a person have to be outspoken/over the edge to be considered a "Spokesman".

There are plenty of people thruout the entertainment industry that support hunting and gun ownership. Maybe the deal is, that unlike Nugent their star is not fading yet. That is part of what causes my lack of enthusiasm for Nugent. To me, it seems Nugent is using his resurgent popularity due to his stance on hunting and guns to hold on to a spot in the Publics Eye.

The question hunters/gun owners have to ask themselves, is when does Nugent's antics become more of a detriment than a benefit?

Maybe I am way off on this, but a newstory I read lead me to believe the problem stemmed from shooting the animal with a bow, then killing it with a gun.

Anyone else hear this version?

Which killing an animal with a gun in bow season will get you cited right away anywhere I think.

Seems to me that this is more about having to get a kill shot for the TV show than about Ted Nugent the personality. If he wasn't filming this, his outfitter/guide would not be worried about bending the rules for the free PR and advertising, and (while not quite kosher) he would have been very unlikely to be prosecuted without the broadcast evidence of illegal hunting.

In both my Alaskan hunts, I was told on day one that if we wounded something, we were done. I doubt that there is an Alaskan guide that is not aware of the law. Not a bad policy IMO.

Not true! The story is that he was bowhunting and supposedly barely scratched a bear he shot at and they continued hunting. Then he shot one, recovered and tagged it, and brought it back to the lower 48. That's why he was charged under the Lacey Act by the Feds for bringing it across state lines, rather than by Alaska authorities.

TopGun, you reading the same article posted in the link. It does not mention the Lacey Act, the trial took place in Alaska. Where are you coming up with the Lacey Act business?

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Beutler:
Page 25, even highlighted.

Possibly apples to oranges, as you quote the 2012 guidebook, not the 2009 for when the event happened.

In any event, this occured in GMU 2. The text of the Alaska Administrative Code, 5 AAC 92.130 appears to have been the same since before that time, reading: "(f) In Units 1 - 5 and Unit 8, a black or brown bear wounded by a person counts against that person's bag limit for the regulatory year in which the bear is taken. However, in Units 1 - 5 and Unit 8, a brown bear wounded by a person does not count against that person's one bear every four regulatory years bag limit established in 5 AAC 92.132."

It appears that the above regulation may not have been in effect in 2000. Interestingly, a report focusing on a nearby but different area of southeast Alaska and on brown, not black, bears was put together by Alaska Board of Game (note the sections I bolded - kind of ironic):


"...The team focused on ways to avoid and minimize wounding loss. It considered recommending
that the BOG adopt a regulation ending hunts when a hunter shoots at a bear, whether or not the
bear is hit. Questions were raised whether such a regulation would be enforceable because no
one would admit to wounding or shooting at and missing a bear.. If enforceability is problem, the
BOG could pass a resolution rather than a regulation. In the end, the team decided the best
approach is education, not regulation.

The team acknowledged that unguided resident hunters are more likely to wound and lose bears
than guided hunters. However, most recommendations to minimize wounding loss are more
easily implemented by guides...."

I've read plenty of game hunting guidebooks and the Alaska one isn't what I'd call the easiest. For a good example, search for "wound" and see how long it takes you to find the violation Ted took a plea on.

Say what you want, but even with the film as evidence ole Ted probably could have sprung for a big buck lawyer and beat the charge in trial.

PS - how many wondering if Tred Barta is reviewing some of his old footage (the way he used to sling arrows at all sorts of critters)


.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
TopGun, you reading the same article posted in the link. It does not mention the Lacey Act, the trial took place in Alaska. Where are you coming up with the Lacey Act business?

USA Today

On of several articles that mention this being the feds. I recall the show this stemmed from. He shot high and to me looks like he just barely dusted off the fur on the bears back. I am sure he figured it was easy to just plead this out and get the feds off his ass as they would of really phucked with him if it went to trial.

As for the violation itself. In this case from my view of things I do not see how anyone could consider the bear wounded. As for Ted not knowing the law as a previous poster stated it comes down to averages. You hunt as much as Ted eventually your gonna run afoul on something minor. Or your going to fall back on advice that you assume is correct from the outfitter.

As many different places that Ted hunts I am sure regulations all seem to run together at times. In the past maybe he hunted a zone that this did not apply to. Really comes down to if your paying an outfitter or guide they should let you know the laws. Especially something as unusual as the law in this case. This is the only state I know of that considers drawn blood as a punched tag.

Ted is definitely a bit out there and at times he not the best face for gunowners and hunters. But unless he gets popped for a blatant illegal anywhere you go type of game violation I will not label him a poacher.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
TopGun, you reading the same article posted in the link. It does not mention the Lacey Act, the trial took place in Alaska. Where are you coming up with the Lacey Act business?

he was charged under the Lacy Act, which is Federal. Transporting an illegally killed animal across state lines. As far as I can find he wasn't charged under any Alaskan state law/reg.

quote:

Originally posted by SG Olds:
Is this his 3rd or 4th conviction?

How many before we don't defend him? I read the regs, yes even in Alaska. 13 states and 3 provinces and still I haven't even been charged. I imagine there are many with more experience and no charges.
What are our standards of conduct? I think my days of defending this OJ are over.

What are his other 2-3 convictions?

Perry

It appears, if you're Ted; you just keep shooting bears until you get one down.

The real irritation, for me at least, is that it would take me three years of penny-pinching to be able to afford a hunt like this; and some showboat draft dodger just waltzes in and wastes what would be a very special hunt.

You wonder how many other things like this have occurred that weren't caught...?

Rich

I wouldn't be to quick to blame old Ted.

Even the Alaskan Department of Fish and Game have hunting law violators in their midst.

"A top official in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game quit his job Thursday after being charged with 12 criminal hunting violations, state officials said.

The charges against Division of Wildlife Conservation Director Corey Rossi, a controversial 2010 appointment, are related to an illegal 2008 bear hunt, according to Alaska State Troopers and charges filed Thursday in state court.

Troopers say the division director lied on big game hunting reports. He was a licensed assistant big game guide at the time, according to troopers."

http://www.thenewstribune.com/...#storylink=mirelated

quote:

he was charged under the Lacy Act, which is Federal. Transporting an illegally killed animal across state lines. As far as I can find he wasn't charged under any Alaskan state law/reg.

I could be wrong, but he is NOT being tried by the Feds, which is who handles Lacey Act violations, but by the state of Alaska.

quote:

Famed rocker and outdoorsman Ted Nugent has filed a plea agreement in the U.S. District Court in Anchorage, Alaska for a case in which he is alleged to have illegally harvested a black bear. According to the terms of the agreement, Nugent will plead guilty to one count of transporting an illegally hunted bear.

quote:

Alaskan hunting laws stipulate that the bear Nugent wounded filled his limit, making the second an illegal kill. By transporting the bear off the island Nugent violated the Federal Lacey Act.

quote:

Nugent has yet to be sentenced but, according to Radar, prosecutors are recommending two years of probation and a ban on hunting and fishing in Alaska for one year plus a $10,000 fine.

At no point in the article does it mention that the Feds are involved. That was probably part of the plea aggreement.

Think folks, with some of the poaching cases that have been discussed on here by Private citizens and the zealousness the Feds have displayed in prosecuting those cases, do you think that they would not have went after Nugent with a vengance.

Now unless someone can show me different, he is not being prosecuted by the Feds for a Lacey Act violation.

Looks like Ted needs to pay a bit more attention to the regs in places he is hunting. Plead guilty in 2010 in CA and now Alaska.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Rocker and wildlife hunter Ted Nugent has agreed to plead guilty to transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.

Nugent made the admission in signing a plea agreement with federal prosecutors that was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.

Calls seeking comment from Nugent, his Anchorage attorney, Wayne Anthony Ross, and assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt were not immediately returned.

The plea agreement says Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in May 2009 on Sukkwan Island days after wounding a bear in a bow hunt, which counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.

According to the agreement, first reported by the Anchorage Daily News, the six-day hunt was filmed for his Outdoor Channel television show, "Spirit of the Wild." In the hunt, Nugent used a number of bear-baiting sites on U.S. Forest Service property, according to the agreement.

The document says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear in misdemeanor violation of the federal Lacey Act.

Nugent, identified in the agreement as Theodore A. Nugent, agreed to pay a $10,000 fine, according to the agreement, which says he also agreed with a two-year probation, including a special condition that he not hunt or fish in Alaska or Forest Service properties for one year. He also agreed to create a public service announcement that would be broadcast on his show every second week for one year, the document states.

"This PSA will discuss the importance of a hunter's responsibility in knowing the rules and regulations of the hunting activities that they engage in, which is subject to the review and final approval, prior to any broadcast, by a representative of the United States Attorney's Office in the District of Alaska," the agreement says.

Nugent, who signed the document April 14, also agreed to pay the state $600 for the bear that was taken illegally, according to the agreement. He would still need to enter the plea in court and have the plea be approved by a judge.

In August 2010, California revoked Nugent's deer hunting license after he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges of deer-baiting and not having a properly signed tag.

Nugent's loss of that deer hunting license through June 2012 allows 34 other states to revoke the same privilege under the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact. Each state, however, can interpret and enforce the agreement differently.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I could be wrong, but he is NOT being tried by the Feds, which is who handles Lacey Act violations, but by the state of Alaska.

*Nugent made the admission in signing a plea agreement with federal prosecutors that was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.

*Calls seeking comment from Nugent, his Anchorage attorney, Wayne Anthony Ross, and assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt were not immediately returned.

*The document says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear in misdemeanor violation of the federal Lacey Act.

*Nugent, identified in the agreement as Theodore A. Nugent, agreed to pay a $10,000 fine, according to the agreement, which says he also agreed with a two-year probation,

The outfitter dropped the ball IMO
They are responsible for obeying all the laws and regs of the state they operate in and this is part of the services they provide on a guided hunt.
As a guide in several western states I am required by law to operate within the bounds of all game laws and at least in my home state of Wy. am required by law to report ALL game violations.
The wound / harvest laws in Ak. seem strange along the lines that you can wound a bear in this zone but not this other zone????
Could Ted have read up and been in tune with the rules of the state he chose to hunt in?
Absolutely, but to fault him for not doing this on a "guided" hunt.... I don't.
The other side of the argument is maybe he should as he is the only one paying the fine
and wearing the "disgraced badge"

Why was the outfitter not punished for allowing Ted to continue hunting in violation of the law?

Not saying Ted isn't partially to blame but isn't the outfitter at fault as well? Certainly, no Lacey Act involvement for the outfitter as he didn't "transport the bear over state lines" but he did allow a violation of the state law, did he not?

In reading stories, I believe the he was hunting without an outfitter and this was a DIY hunt. There is a solid article in the Alaska Dispatch
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/...a-bear-case?page=0,0

Crazy---Part of the last paragraph in the above link is this:
Ross has done the talking, and even Nugent's website offers nothing of his version of why he is in the news all over the country for, as the Anchorage newspaper put it, an "illegal Alaska bear kill." Ross has questioned that claim. He believes his client killed only one bear, and the limit in the state of Alaska is one bear. Ross has called the wounding law "crazy.'' Along with being a lawyer, Ross is a licensed assistant big-game guide Alaska. "Even me, an assistant guide, was not aware of this law, and neither was Ted,'' Ross said Monday in defense of his client.

*** I hope everyone else here has shown that I was correct on the charges and who Nugent made the plea in violating the Lacey Act with.

He is not the first "outdoor communicator" to get spanked for filming or photographing something illegal.

Bryce Towsley got slapped for using a scope on a muzzleloader in a state where it wasn't allowed - but he sure wasn't accused of a Lacey Act violation (thank god). I was on a varmint hunt once where we were all given suppressors. Trouble is, no one checked to see if the things were legal to hunt with in that state. They weren't, even for varmints. Good thing I checked before I wrote the story.

I saw a guy on TV wound a deer with bow and then say, "These things happen; the only thing we can do is go find another."

To make this into a Lacey Act violation is a joke IMO.

Nugent screwed up. for some damn reason, the Feds and Alaska chose not to pursue this with the same intensity as they did the hunters in Oregon that was on here not that long back.

Someone PLEASE explainto me, WHY Nugent got to basically walk, while the individuals from Oregon barely escaped the death sentence????

quote:

*Nugent, identified in the agreement as Theodore A. Nugent, agreed to pay a $10,000 fine, according to the agreement, which says he also agreed with a two-year probation,

Doesn't sound like he walked to me.