Chesapeake Flyway Forum Sponsors

SB88 Senate testimony

Discussion in 'Chesapeake Flyway Forum' started by Backpeddler, Feb 10, 2015.

  1. TarNFeathers

    TarNFeathers Refuge Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Location:
    Maryland
    Honga,

    I respect the fact that you devoted years of your professional life to enforcing MWF regs, but it seems clear to me that if,as I believe you stated, you only wrote citations for hunters that you knew to be aware of the bait, then you were choosing to NOT enforce strict liability. As I understand, the conventional enforcement approach was the opposite of the one you took. I'm thinking about Bill Parkers take on the topic. He ceased waterfowl hunting and had his officers and prosecuting attorneys do the same as he realized that strict liablity would have given his department a black eye and forced him to fire the warden or attorney should he unknowingly hunt near bait and be caught doing so. I don't know if you worked for the state or the feds. DNR does have a reputation for being somewhat more concerned with fairness and intent than FWS, but ultimately under SL, neither of them have to prove you knew.
     
  2. Scotty

    Scotty Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,084
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    Salisbury, MD
    We have always been told that hunting a baited flyway is illegal. And, strict liability is the law used to cite someone, because of how it's written. NRP officers have told me this, in person!! Both federal and state! If SL is so necessary and fair, why did the USFWS do away with it?

    Ok I looked up baiting zone of influence... Here is a case for you... Below us one exerpt
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1216208.html

    (3) hunting is prohibited within the zone of influence of a baited area regardless of who baited the area -

    And another case dealing with "zone of influence"
    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/550/572/1451594/

    There are plenty more!

    So, you can't tell me that it would not be possible to be written a ticket because my neighbor is baiting, because the birds are being influenced by the bait, and I am hunting in that "zone of influence".
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
  3. Allan

    Allan Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,600
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2000
    And if the neighbor hadn't admitted to baiting the area?
     
  4. TarNFeathers

    TarNFeathers Refuge Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Location:
    Maryland
    Exactly! Couldn't have put it more succintly myself.
     
  5. muddyduck

    muddyduck Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,640
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Location:
    Centreville, Maryland
    Oooo....Ooo....Mr. Kotter let me guess!!!!
     
  6. Allan

    Allan Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,600
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2000
    Wait your turn, Horshack! :)
     
  7. honga

    honga Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    740
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Location:
    Maryland
    I was a state officer stationed primarily in Dorchester County Maryland. We used SL to charge that individual already mentioned in this discussion several times. That guy or group of guys who we knew were the ones responsible for the baited area who would not admit it. There are or were plenty of them.

    Allan,
    We did not always arrest everyone in the vicinity of an area where feeding was taking place. We investigated the situation and took the appropriate action. In the case I mentioned had the landowner not admitted to feeding, even though it was common knowledge that they did ,we would have taken the same action and closed the blind. If the blind decided to hunt anyway we would have charged them.

    Scotty,
    I never saw a state or federal officer make a case that involved a separate property over which the hunter had no control. There were plenty of cases made involving zone of influence but that zone was confined to a single piece of property owned by one person. I will say that there have been and may still be situations where a hunting property has been closed due to feeding on an adjoining property and they were subject to charges but only if they hunted after being advised of the situation.

    TarNFeathers,
    SL is a tool that is a part of the law that prohibits hunting with the aid of bait. It is not the end all be all of any waterfowl baiting case but it is a very important part of the enforcement of the law in cultures that revel in the idea that baiting is a legitimate tool in waterfowl hunting. I have mentioned several times that the hard core outlaws out there often never admit to their actions regarding baiting and that is where SL comes into play.

    Now I am going to have a bourbon and water... a double... any conversation from here on will be under the alcafluence of incahol.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
  8. Scotty

    Scotty Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,084
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    Salisbury, MD
    Ok.... At least you explained it a
    Lot better than eye did. I can see where you are coming from, but I can't really see that EVERY officer would be as courteous.
     
  9. carolina girl

    carolina girl Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,374
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    maryland
    Honga,
    I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that the majority of people charged with a crime, any crime, doesn't admit to committing the crime or their actions involving them in the crime, which is why we have and should always exercise our right to remain silent.

    It's the evidence, or lack of in the case of strict liability, that more often then not convicts a person.

    Strict liability deletes the requirement of having to provide evidence that one person is guilty of committing the crime their being charged with.

    That just doesn't sit well with me, and no matter how you try and explain the benefits of it, It never will sit well with me.
     
  10. muskrat25

    muskrat25 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,871
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Location:
    Maryland
    This entire thread clearly demonstrates:

    We may have the right to remain silent.......

    but apparently we don't have the ability to remain silent!


    (Credit Ron White).



    And on that note, I'm really done on this topic!

    Probably.

    Time for the democratic process to sort out the next step.
     

Share This Page