What is wrong with people?

[warddog]

I have made my statements from an Indiana law standpoint as I am not from the state in which this occured. I am not familiar with the law of that state but have experianced many situations over my years hunting in Indiana and through the court system when it comes to charges accessed via the Department of Natural Resources. I'll tell you these DNR officers here have NO problem in enforcing the very WORD of the law. They most generally do not waste much time with lip service as they know the consequences of a remedy not being reached in disputes in the field. One of the federal plants I regulated was a deer check station as well as a processor of deer and the Conservation officers were in there ALL the time checking the paperwork as well as looking over the deer in the cooler as well as what was being brought or checked in. From what I gathered from speaking to them in there as well as in the field I come to the realization that they were well aware that dealing with disputes and hot headed people was a dangerous situation for not only the parties involved but for them as well and lip service wasn't at the top of their list but rather charges for violation of the word of law which by the way is the only thing they can enforce, as "unwritten rules" or hunter etiquette has no force, effect or legal binding to them. These are merely rules and actions observed by those within that confined group of people and have no meaning to anyone else. I have relatives whi live and hunt in missouri so I have had some correspondence with them as well as I may want to make a trip with my dogs to that state to hunt sometime.

To answer Bunnyblaster's question abiut being pi$$ed off, it is a flat out NO. I have stated as well as have several others that we would NOT have allowed this to happen in the first place. When I noticed that we were being encroached upon in the field by other hunters I would have got to those in my party and told them to gather up the dogs so we can move on. This is why whether it was public or private property was a concern to me because if on public property this happens ALL the time as others have the very same right to be there as anyone else does and they have the very same legal right to shoot ANY game they are legally pursuing. This is exactly why we do NOT hunt public property and why we pay a pretty good price to belong to a hunting club lease.

In addressing BunnyBlasters next question of "do you disagree" that the Conversation officer would have had something to say to both parties my answer to that is YES, I totally disagree becasue as an officer of the law the only thing they have any authority over is a violation of the word of law, NO unwritten rules or no subjective etical conduct. They are held just as I was as a federal officer of the law to the word of law only. One other thing that folks don't understand is that officers of the law can and do get sued and found quilty when they act outside of their scope of employment. Any law enforcement officer trying to impose anything other than the word of law subjects themselves to legal recourse as well. and I've never encountered a Conservation officer wanting to chit chat. They are precise and to the point of what their business is and it is to enforce the game laws of the state not referee. In this situation they may explain what law(s) if any were violated, write a citation or infirm the party's of how to reach a conclusion to their disagreement.

I will answer one more concern of what laws Joeyman may have violated and as stated I'm not familiar with the laws of that state but I do know that Indiana has a hunter harassment law and in Missouri they have an interference law. What that basically states is that it is a violation of law to "INTERFERE" with another person while in legal pursuit of game. IAW the word of law both parties were in the legal pursuit of game as I assume they both were on public land or private with permission. If they were on private without permission they are both in violation of the law. Joeyman's party was pursuing game with the aid of dogs which does NOT give them any lawful rights to that game and is still fair game at that point. The other party legally hunted up to a position to cut off the rabbit and in doing what they were also out there to do legally fired a shot at the fair game rabbit. This guy did NOT violate any word of law but Joeyman ran to this individual yelling and screaming profanities, that normally cause one to become defensive especially with young children observing) at him which in FACT interferrred with his ability as well as his young children's ability to get another shot off on that fair game animal that his party was in legal pursuit of. If Joeyman had such concern for his hunting party and his dogs as he proffered as an excuse he would have ran over to HIS hunting party to tell them that they were being encroached upon by other hunters and to help catch their dogs to move on.

Those are the FACTS as they apply to the word of law as I see it and as I already stated many times had it been me it would have came to a definate decision especially with young kids watching on. FACTS are only one person violated the word of law although both violated either the "unwriiten rules" or hunter ethics. What I found even more interesting is the language used in the Missouri code as oppossed to the Indiana code after I discussed this situation with my brother-in-laws who live and hunt in southwestern Missouri. The actual written word of the Missouri code of "interfer" gives the courts a wider berth than the word "harass" does. Harassment is a repeated act or actions to impede while interfer is a single act or action. Joeyman's own words in defending what he did serves as the very evidence that finds him guilty of a violation of Misourri Code 578.151 and 578.152. He states that his only concern was for the safety of his hunting party and his dogs and it was due to that concern he interferred with the other party by prohibiting them from taking another shot in that area where they were lawfully hunting. Under this statute of Misourri law the penalties can include punitive damages in the form of lost time, travel expenses and duress.

The prosecution rests it's case.

[Casey Harner]

wow ken... that's a lot of typing.

[Bunnyblaster]

Good explanation and I understand your view better now. Even if ethically joey's stance on the matter is correct his hollering at them could have interfered with their ability to continue to hunt that particular rabbit at the time. But of course I have one other question your explanation made me think of.

Given the actions that the other hunting party took at what point are they interfering with the hunting rights of joeymans hunting party???.........from a legal standpoint anyway?? I hadn't really thought about it that way until your last explanation but were they not infringing on joeys hunting rights also?? Or does it get played like "this is my spot, I was here first" regardless of how close you come to another person while they are hunting?? This part is getting right down to splitting hairs just a bit but it actually did make me think. Regardless of the ethics involved Joey interfered with them but did they not also interfere with Joey??? Or because they were a certain number of feet away is it ok regardless of whether or not joey thought they were maybe a little too close for comfort?? Is there anything written into the law to maintain some distance if for no other reason than safety for the hunting party and/or the dogs?? Or would the law only step in if someone happened to get shot??

I can't help but wonder how that would play out in the woods if a Conservation Officer had to be called in.

[Mapel Valley Kennels LLC.]

Hey Wardog, You seem to be alot more verse in law than i and its good to keep a man as urself on some type of a retainer.
I actually have 2 questions for you.1.How much to render your fees to a ky hillbilly 2.If we ever get to hunt together you wont wanna read me my rights or frisk me first will you?

[Mo. Beagler 5000]

wardog--- if you do come to MO let me know. we can go kill some bunnies. i love new hunting partners.

for bunny blaster:
the law is 578.151. Legislative intent--interference with lawful hunting, fishing or trapping in the first degree--penalty
3. It shall be considered a violation of this section to intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any game animal or fish for the purpose of disrupting lawful hunting, fishing or trapping.

unless you could prove intent then the other party can not be held liable for messing up joeys hunt..only the opposite for joey harassing the shooter, justified or not...

[gwyoung]

Mo. beagler 5000. I believe shooting at a rabbit that another man's dogs are pursuing is disrupting the hunt and if intentionally done would fall under the harrassment paragraph that you printed. If not this person could just follow you around all day and do this. I think this is exactly the sort of thing that the law is attempting to punish. however,I would think if it was a one time thing and the man didn't say it was his intention to disrupt he would probably suffer no ill consequences. if he continued to do this his plea of ignorance would fall on deaf ears and he would be prosecuted. The man in my opinion ( though probably ignorant) is in definite violation as outlined in the part of the law you posted. I still would have had a nice conversation with him and invited his party to hunt, but he was in violation of the law as I understand what you have printed.

[Bunnyblaster]

I tend to agree with gw on my understanding of the law as it is written. But like he said it can sometimes be hard to actually prove intent.

[bigdog]

i still think its all about "RESPECT" and the guy shooting over joeys dogs was wrong no matter what the law says.i for one am not going to tuck my tail and walk off. i will voice my opinion and move on. and i really dont think very many people out there would think about shooting someone over something like this i think people are smarter than that.

[gwyoung]

Bigdog, As far as people not shooting someone over something like this, Do you ever watch the news? You are giving everyone far too much credit and the graveyards are full of evidence of this. Many lives have been lost in disputes over traffic accidents, treestands, dogs, cutting folks off in traffic, ( Bet you thought people were smarter than that also) girlfriends, parking spaces, ball games, not having dinner ready when the husband got home,( true story) In arguments over politics, and religion. getting fired, not getting promoted, giving someone the finger, Pool games, poker games. All of this is true and we all know it. These examples are not the work of smart people. Don't assume somehow all of the dumb ones are somehow gone! if you do you will do so at great risk to yourself, Be careful. You also say you do not believe very many people would do something like this, It only takes one, my friend.

[Bunnyblaster]

gwyoung, just when I can start to see your point you go and say something like this.

So on one hand you want us all to be leery of going off on someone because they may in turn shoot us down dead but on the other hand you want us to believe the best in people and think we should offer to help those poor lost souls to become better sportsman because all most of them really want is to be taught?!? It can't be both unless you just choose to be cautious because you are afraid of confrontation. Basically what I am getting out of you is to always just walk away to save your/our own skin regardless of the circumstances. And in turn just allow ourselves to be walked all over by anyone that is unafraid of us knowing that most people will walk away just to avoid a confrontation.

Bigdog I guess I'm still on the side of speaking my peace and the rest be darned. I may or may not be a little more respectful than others if and when I do it but wrong is wrong and they are gonna hear about it..........and I would expect nothing less in return if I wronged someone else. I guess if I'm dumb enough to let it get to the point of getting myself shot then we'll just chalk it up to darwinism and at least I won't be able to spread around my ignorant, unintelligent and confrontational seed. I probably shouldn't confront someone breaking into my house either for fear of something bad happening.

I think I'll stick to the "if you don't stand for something then you'll fall for anything" theory. The rest of you can do whatever you "think" is right.

[Bunnyblaster]

Oh btw, good post bigdog......you are right on the money!

[bigdog]

gwyoung. i want you to post how many loose their lives do to confrontation over rabbit hunting in 2012 prob dont think it will happen.

[gwyoung]

bunnyblaster, No you have it wrong, I don't believe the primary reason to not go off on someone is because of the fear of getting shot, I think the primary reason for it is to be civil, realize that others may be making an honest mistake , or simply ignorant. I think all I have said backs this up. Eventhough getting shot dead is a very good reason as Well, and I simply explained to bigdog what is very apparent in this world today, there are those out there that will shoot you over less than a rabbit, I think that is clear to all of us, and very hard to muddy for most of us.

Bigdog, I hope I don't have any to report, but you will have to admit the more confrontations we have in the field while rabbit hunting will increase the likely hood of it.

[bigdog]

i have nothing else to say. just gonna run my dogs and hope like HE_ _ nobody walks in and starts shooting at the rabbits or i think we will have a discussion. HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY......

[Nurse Laura]

As many posts that have been made on this topic, as wide as the opinion has been - it appears that most everyone would have words about if put in this situation - good bad or the ugly there would be words.... lol