Gregg Ritz Huntmaster court case

[Jim Boyd]

Some of us are brutish and hostile. Those antis had better be concerned.

Anti’s should be concerned about what?

A very clear argument can be made that they have little to lose.

Who should be smart are the pro gun folks.

Hostility does play right into the hands of those that would mitigate or dilute 2A rights.

Canada banned “assault weapons” this week, I think.

The problem with that is that a Mini 14 and an AR do exactly the same thing - but which category does a Mini 14 fall into.

What is needed is a concerted, comprehensive and INTELLIGENT set of actions to preserve 2A.

 

[DAVE]

In Ga I believe you can leave your kill where it fell if you so choose.
True or not?
If I find it in time to eat it gets dragged out.

I did not research it but feel certain waste laws are pretty much standard everywhere in America on game animals.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

Anybody who leaves a deer out in the woods to rot after taking pictures of its horns deserves some punishment.

I agree with the sentiment, but the more important principle for me is the Constitutional guarantee relating to ex post facto laws. I hate to see citizens punished (or even charged) beyond a reasonable interpretation of the laws on the books when the crime was committed.

When I was a farmer, I killed a lot of nuisance animals under agricultural damage control laws and permits, including deer. It was legal to let these animals lay and rot, including deer. For the first few years, I made every effort to make use of the animals I killed. But raccoons and coyote killed in summer have very little value or practical use. By the time coon pelt prices dropped below $5 in winter, I wasn't even skinning them then.

Most of the time, we had folks lined up to take the deer we killed, and we often paid the $60 processing fee to give them to needy people. But on a couple of occasions the need to kill deer damaging crops exceeded our ability to pay for the processing and give them away, so we let them lay. Not an ideal situation, for sure, but it was in accordance with the applicable laws. I don't recall if any were bucks or if any of the shooters posed for a picture, but it may well have happened that way. I do know I worked hard and spent a lot of money trying to prevent this situation. But when faced with the choice of losing thousands of dollars worth of crops or letting a few deer rot in a hugely overpopulated area, I chose to let a few deer rot. If permitted under law, I'd probably make the same choice again.

I feel the same way about killing wild hogs in areas where they are considered a nuisance. Once an animal assumes a "varmint" or nuisance status, I don't see any moral obligation to make use of its meat or hide to justify killing it, as long as it is legal to do it that way. There are lots of areas of the US where I would not blame shooters for killing wild hogs, posing for pictures, and letting them rot.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

What is needed is a concerted, comprehensive and INTELLIGENT set of actions to preserve 2A.

The challenge here is most gun owners are willing to give away a subset of rights in order to appease the anti-gunners. Ongoing appeasement leads to a gradual erosion. Over decades, that gradual erosion becomes more significant.

In my mind, the only reasonable changes to any set of gun laws MUST only represent gaining ground without any compromise or argument that the "net gains" are positive. Any lost ground is more likely than not lost for ever.

 

[jiminbogart]

Anti’s should be concerned about what?

A very clear argument can be made that they have little to lose.

Who should be smart are the pro gun folks.

Hostility does play right into the hands of those that would mitigate or dilute 2A rights.

Canada banned “assault weapons” this week, I think.

The problem with that is that a Mini 14 and an AR do exactly the same thing - but which category does a Mini 14 fall into.

What is needed is a concerted, comprehensive and INTELLIGENT set of actions to preserve 2A.

They should be concerned for their safety.

They have a lot to lose.

I do not believe in kneeling down to those that would take my freedom.

I will not be civil to them either. They are the enemy.

As far as Canada goes, that is no concern of mine. I am not fond of the french or of any canadians I have met. I blame them for Celine Dion.

 

[Jim Boyd]

The challenge here is most gun owners are willing to give away a subset of rights in order to appease the anti-gunners. Ongoing appeasement leads to a gradual erosion. Over decades, that gradual erosion becomes more significant.

In my mind, the only reasonable changes to any set of gun laws MUST only represent gaining ground without any compromise or argument that the "net gains" are positive. Any lost ground is more likely than not lost for ever.

This is an intelligent and well stated viewpoint.

Yes, I would agree - ground that is lost is potentially lost permanently.

 

[Jim Boyd]

They should be concerned for their safety.

They have a lot to lose.

I do not believe in kneeling down to those that would take my freedom.

I will not be civil to them either. They are the enemy.

As far as Canada goes, that is no concern of mine. I am not fond of the french or of any canadians I have met. I blame them for Celine Dion.

I have no idea who Celina Dion is - but is your post to suggest that you are going to shoot or otherwise attack people that disagree with you?

This is likely the mindset that mass murder comes from and only serves to further threaten gun rights.

I view firearms as a way to protect me and mine but if you see it otherwise, that is your right.

God will judge some folks right and some folks wrong.

 

[dtala]

I did not research it but feel certain waste laws are pretty much standard everywhere in America on game animals.

not true, some states do not have wanton waste laws/regs. Alabama does not have one, don't know about Ga.

 

[DAVE]

not true, some states do not have wanton waste laws/regs. Alabama does not have one, don't know about Ga.

_ 220-2-.13 Reasonable Effort Must Be Made to Retrieve Crippled Birds, Animals and Fish It shall be illegal for any person, firm, or corporation to kill or cripple any species of game bird, game animal or game fish without making a reasonable effort to retrieve same and include it in his daily bag or creel limit. Nothing in this regulation permits or requires a person to enter upon the land or waters of another for the purpose of retrieving game or fish without the permission of the landowner. _ __This was copied from Alabama Hunting regulations for the year 2019-2020_________________________________________________________________

 

[dtala]

Dave, yes you have to make a reasonable effort to retrieve the game. You can then cut the backstops out and throw away the rest of the deer without penalty. Most wanton waste laws prohibit that kind of action.

 

[buckpasser]

If he’s guilty of what’s he been charged, may he go the way of Chris Brackett. See ya!

 

[jiminbogart]

I have no idea who Celina Dion is...

She is a French Canadian singer. Everything about her makes me cringe.

...but is your post to suggest that you are going to shoot or otherwise attack people that disagree with you?

If it comes down to it I will not bow down. I seen the history of what happened in WW2 to the people the Nazis murdered. I am not planning to die on my knees.

This is likely the mindset that mass murder comes...

You confused me with this comment. I'm not sure how you got there.

I view firearms as a way to protect me and mine but if you see it otherwise, that is your right.

That's the way I see it. I pity the fool that attempts confiscation at my house though.

Everyone thinks it can't happen here. They are fools. Every bad thing that has happened to people any where else can happen here too.

 

[Throwback]

In Ga I believe you can leave your kill where it fell if you so choose.
True or not?
If I find it in time to eat it gets dragged out.

How detailed do you want me to get explaining this?
My minds an open book now.

 

[Buckstop]

You have to wonder at what point the filming of hunts specifically for hunting shows becomes a fully commercial use of a publicly owned resource (game animals that cannot be bought or sold).

The driving force in the public's use of the resource has traditionally been recreation and food consumption. Motivation behind this type hunt is strictly capturing video and still shots for commercial use. After the shot they made a successful effort to locate the deer to capture content of the "recovery". At that point the "hunter" had all that was of value to him, video and photos, likely worth many thousands of dollars once sold in the way of advertising and sponsorship. Mission accomplished. Would it have really have been that big of a burden to ensure the meat was cared for and utilized by someone, anyone, afterward?

Bottom line, they are making bank on the public's game resource. His actions show total laziness and disregard for the public as well as the deer. Use our resource respectfully, or be prepared for some career changing bad press.

 

[Nicodemus]

How detailed do you want me to get explaining this?
My minds an open book now.

Tell em, T. Give em a education.

 

[Mako22]

I have no idea who Celina Dion is - but is your post to suggest that you are going to shoot or otherwise attack people that disagree with you?

This is likely the mindset that mass murder comes from and only serves to further threaten gun rights.

I view firearms as a way to protect me and mine but if you see it otherwise, that is your right.

God will judge some folks right and some folks wrong.

I view gun rights in the light of the Constitution and original intent. My right to own a firearm is to keep the Government in check.

 

[treadwell]

When I was a farmer, I killed a lot of nuisance animals under agricultural damage control laws and permits, including deer. It was legal to let these animals lay and rot, including deer.

I find much favor in the things you do to make this a better world and improve the lives of others, but, I'm just curious, did you allow, or attempt to let others, (possibly after a vetting to insure they would hunt safely) an opportunity to actually remove some of you're "over abundance" of game during the legal hunting season? I know TON's of folks who hunt VERY ethically and safely who would have loved the opportunity to kill a few deer for their freezer and have a memorable time doing so.
I KNOW......blah, blah, blah..... (I've been on the Forum a long time and know every response to this statement, i.e. it's my land and I don't want anyone on it, I've worked all my life and don't want some stranger shooting up the place, I don't want to get sued, I get it, but to let FOOD rot in the field is unacceptable.
And here we go.......

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

I find much favor in the things you do to make this a better world and improve the lives of others, but, I'm just curious, did you allow, or attempt to let others, (possibly after a vetting to insure they would hunt safely) an opportunity to actually remove some of you're "over abundance" of game during the legal hunting season?

Yes, we granted permission to as many local hunters as we determined could hunt the property safely and effectively. But due to a long archery season and a short gun season (in that state at the time), legal hunting methods tended to be less effective at removing large numbers of deer than using rifles throughout the spring and summer. Deer tended to be on the property more when the fields were full of corn and the trees were full of apples in late summer and early fall than for most of the hunting season when there main food sources were in other areas.

The other challenge using sport hunting to control populations is the tendency for sport hunters to pass on does while waiting on that big buck. For optimum population control, we needed hunters willing to shoot does at nearly every opportunity. We didn't mind them taking big bucks, but we wanted them to kill their limit of does each season. It took years to adjust permissions to get a group of hunters which would consistently kill their limit of does (or close to it).

Every hunter we granted permission to talked a great game before we provided written permission. But after that, too many focused on bucks, crossed property lines onto our neighbors' property without permission, and failed to conduct themselves with the care that hunting on a small property in an urban area requires.

On the whole, sport hunters did contribute to population control and reducing deer damage, but even with concerted efforts to optimize their contribution, they only killed about 30% of the deer that needed to be killed to meet population control goals. When you start with 100+ deer per square mile in an area with a carrying capacity less than 25 deer per square mile, a lot of deer need to be removed. That is very hard to do with sport hunting alone on a 100 acre property.

 

[treadwell]

Well explained, (I know you didn't have to, but thanks anyway.) I encourage you to continue spreading encouragement to others, especially in these turbulent times.

 

[livetohunt]

Tomorrow at 900am the case is heard. Interesting to see what happens.