Ted Nugent: Poacher

[RCStylin']

I used to respect Ted...rallying for the NRA and hunting rights, which I hold dear to my heart. But now he has crossed the line.

Fucking poacher

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/21/justice/alaska-nugent-bear-hunting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[mxer]

That's a pretty gray area when you wound an animal and can't track it down. I could have gone miles after being wounded.

[TinkerinWstuff]

think you're over reacting a touch. There's a big difference between "fucking poacher" and making a mistake and accepting the consequences.

[CaptGoodvibes]

It's not like he killed two bears. He just got caught up in a technicality.

Judges rule: No poach. OP overreaction. 5 minute penalty.

[RCStylin']

He also did it for his TV show...which an atrocity. The hunting rules in each state are the way they are. If you break them you have to pay the consequences. However, if compared to someone breaking the rules to feed his family vs. fill his pocketbook by having better ratings...Ted sucks.

Just lost all respect for him.

[Nick_Ninja]

He also did it for his TV show...which an atrocity. The hunting rules in each state are the way they are. If you break them you have to pay the consequences. However, if compared to someone breaking the rules to feed his family vs. fill his pocketbook by having better ratings...Ted sucks.

Just lost all respect for him.

+1 :up:

[The Black Knight]

Nugent broke a cardinal rule of hunting and that is, if you hit the animal regardless of it being wounded. You must track it down. And it wasn't like it was an Elk(which can run forever after being shot) it was a bear and they aren't the fastest animal. I'm sure he also had a tracker with him, he should have found the bear. I really like Nugent and support a lot of what he stands for but I think he starts to believe his own bullshit of him being this great white hunter.

[TinkerinWstuff]

People sure seem to know a hell of a lot and willing to condemn the guy just off a newspaper article. Newspaper articles have never been known to have an adjenda.

They violated a law and accepted the consequence. Just like countless companies around the country who violate tax law, building code, etc. a "fucking poacher" is a guy who shoots animals he never had tags for and willfully breaking the law. There's no way to know for sure whether the show knew the law and willfully chose to neglect it.

I've hunted with a lot of good people over the years. There has been more than one time where a person shoots, there appears to be a drop of blood, and then five guys look for hours and find no trace of it. It happens - unfortunately, but it is reality.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Was it Winkleman that got busted 15years ago or so for using a plane and radios to locate game? Now that one kind of seemed like a no brainer.

[Dietrich_R1]

Just because you launch an arrow at an animal that is considered poaching??

Who knows if you really hit it??

[CaptGoodvibes]

"Nugent's attorney told the Anchorage Daily News on Friday that his client, who has previously hunted in the same area, was unaware of the law, which was introduced less than five years ago. He told the newspaper he watched the video clip from Nugent's show and the arrow "touched" the bear and stuck in the ground.

"There wasn't any blood trail that they could find," Ross said. "There was a little blood apparently at the spot, but nothing that indicated the bear was hard hit.""

[modette99]

Seems some of you are silly.

TinkerinWstuff is dead on.

I have more respect for Ted now. Not only did the arrow only TOUCH the Bear (grazed maybe) Ted decided is was a) best to admit for a better public reaction b) just settle and not spend millions fighting this silly technicality. Seems like a very smart guy to me.

The law does not want you to shoot an animal and let it run off and die. However reality you can be shot (even a human) and survive most of the time. We are also talking about an arrow, the Bear probably went off and is living a good life healed up assuming it was actually hit and not grazed then which course it for sure is healed and living.

Also like it was said, seems to be a newer law...and of course not knowing the law is not an excuse but it is understandable. There is not ONE person that knows every law for a state, not to mention all States....it is where the USA fails in complexity vs having one set of laws/rules for all states.

[Ezzzzy1]

With or without a law my first thought is "with a bow?". I am a little surprised that anyone would even think thats a good idea. You would have to be 10 times closer than with a rifle and the chance of a wound has got to be high as well. Im not a bow hunter so I wouldnt know but it just seem a little outside normal hunting practices?

How capable is a bow for killing a bear?

[The Black Knight]

Seems some of you are silly.

TinkerinWstuff is dead on.

I have more respect for Ted now. Not only did the arrow only TOUCH the Bear (grazed maybe) Ted decided is was a) best to admit for a better public reaction b) just settle and not spend millions fighting this silly technicality. Seems like a very smart guy to me.

The law does not want you to shoot an animal and let it run off and die. However reality you can be shot (even a human) and survive most of the time. We are also talking about an arrow, the Bear probably went off and is living a good life healed up assuming it was actually hit and not grazed then which course it for sure is healed and living.

Also like it was said, seems to be a newer law...and of course not knowing the law is not an excuse but it is understandable. There is not ONE person that knows every law for a state, not to mention all States....it is where the USA fails in complexity vs having one set of laws/rules for all states.
Apparently you've never seen what a 125gr broadhead can do??? Remember, an arrow looses none of its weight and doesn't deform like bullets do at point of impact. Arrows will cause as much if not more damage that a bullet because most of the time the arrow goes through the animal. Then destroys everything in its path.

I'm not saying the bear can't heal from an arrow. But don't dismiss an arrow just because it's an arrow. A broadhead is nothing to be messed with.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I bow hunt all the time. If one blade grazes the side and does not direct hit, the animal gets a cut like shaving (exaggerated). The animal can easily go on living and is healed up in a week. Based on the description of the video footage, it could easily be assumed that that was the case here.

[RCStylin']

Ummm...nice try with all the "the arrow only touched the animal" blah, blah, blah. He was found guilty. If the arrow only touched the bear, the judgement would have gone the other way.

[Ezzzzy1]

This makes a little more sense...

"Nugent “failed to locate and harvest the wounded black bear,” the plea agreement said, and then four days later, he shot and killed another black bear at one of the registered bait sites and then transported it off the island.

The problem: Alaska hunting regulations say the first wounded bear fulfilled his bag limit; the second one was an illegal kill. Transporting it off the island made it a violation of the federal Lacey Act."

I would have settled as well. He made a mistake and maned up. I could see how a lot of people wouldnt have known that an arrow glancing a bear is considered the same as a kill.

[modette99]

Ummm...nice try with all the "the arrow only touched the animal" blah, blah, blah. He was found guilty. If the arrow only touched the bear, the judgement would have gone the other way.

Guess I need to go back an re-read but it sounded like he settled and there was not a JUDGEMENT. Big difference here in just saying "okay I was wrong" just to settle then going to trial and being found guilty. (even then it don't mean much, plenty of innocent people get the shaft all the time).

Oh and if it was a "judgement" you act like all Judgement are spot on accurate...LOL

Article uses the words "plea deal"...people take plea deals for many reasons typically not to waste time & money. It does not mean you are guilty of anything.


In the plea agreement, Nugent admitted to shooting and killing a bear using a bow and arrow during a hunt on Sukkwan Island in southeast Alaska, just days after he wounded another bear.

The real issue is not that he might have wounded another (first bear) but that he transported it off the island by boat.


Where the federal charge against Nugent -- a misdemeanor count of violating the Lacey Act -- comes in to play, according to court documents, is that he left the island by boat with the dead bear and "knew or should have known, in the exercise of due care, that the black bear was taken, possessed or transported in violation of a law or regulation of the United States."

If you take their word for it which was probably true.


"There wasn't any blood trail that they could find," Ross said. "There was a little blood apparently at the spot, but nothing that indicated the bear was hard hit."

[CaptGoodvibes]

Ummm...nice try with all the "the arrow only touched the animal" blah, blah, blah. He was found guilty. If the arrow only touched the bear, the judgement would have gone the other way.

If the law says a wound goes against the bag limit, and a wound includes a paper cut, then an arrow could easily cause a wound without ever endangering the animal.

You are overreacting. :hibye:

[TinkerinWstuff]

Amen, others have already said and I agree there's a big difference between accepting a plea and being found guilty in court.

I'm beginning to think you were never a Ted fan and just trying to spread more smear against the guy.

[The Black Knight]

With or without a law my first thought is "with a bow?". I am a little surprised that anyone would even think thats a good idea. You would have to be 10 times closer than with a rifle and the chance of a wound has got to be high as well. Im not a bow hunter so I wouldnt know but it just seem a little outside normal hunting practices?

How capable is a bow for killing a bear?
A bow is a very capable weapon. The Native Americans used them to take buffalo(which is way bigger than a bear). And Native Americans were using old school bows that were no where pushing near the fps that today's Modern bows are capable of.

Basically you can hunt just about anything in North America with a bow. Can't say as I'd want to try it against a Grizzly or Moose. But Elk and Deer are perfectly fine with a bow.

[Jmetz]

Ummm...nice try with all the "the arrow only touched the animal" blah, blah, blah. He was found guilty. If the arrow only touched the bear, the judgement would have gone the other way.

Yes, because innocent people have never been found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. You put a lot of faith in the government and judicial system. Good luck with that.

[dhearkt]

seriously ... any of you out here hunt ... he wounded an animal .. it ran off and if he lost track of it .. couldn't relocate it to finish the kill .. and moved on and completed a clean kill .. used the tag that he held and transported it via that way ..
and since he more than likely had a guide .. his guide should have informed him of that stipulation ,,

if there are any hunters in here .. can recite every line of hunting law and reg in colorado

yes most of us know limits and seasons and tags and shite ..

this is a ploy .. of a leak against the nuge .. for he comments on our dippy presidente..

don't take the easy ploy by a party that will us inadvertently from 2009 even to try and put down the rep of a for the most part good american ... over using his right to free speech .

[TinkerinWstuff]

A bow is a very capable weapon. The Native Americans used them to take buffalo(which is way bigger than a bear). And Native Americans were using old school bows that were no where pushing near the fps that today's Modern bows are capable of.

Basically you can hunt just about anything in North America with a bow. Can't say as I'd want to try it against a Grizzly or Moose. But Elk and Deer are perfectly fine with a bow.

agreed. Only thing I can think of off the top of my head which you cannot hunt with archery is migratory birds.

To my knowledge, most folks who hunt bear with archery have backup with a handgun.

[RCStylin']

Amen, others have already said and I agree there's a big difference between accepting a plea and being found guilty in court.

I'm beginning to think you were never a Ted fan and just trying to spread more smear against the guy.

The 1st concert I ever went to was Ted's. I'm pissed because he represents both the NRA and hunting, in general. Now the people who hate both of these will have even more ammunition to take them down.

Way to go Ted. Douche.

[#1Townie]

Damn rc you got some hate over a drop of blood. Bear is still alive for sure. He should have fought it.

[Ezzzzy1]

He should have fought it.

I would of.... just sayin :lol:

But seriously, could you imagine having to fight a bear in a cage? Shit would be over in about 45 seconds :shock:

[#1Townie]

Fuck that. I could do it naked with my bare hands.

[mxer]

He also did it for his TV show...which an atrocity. The hunting rules in each state are the way they are. If you break them you have to pay the consequences. However, if compared to someone breaking the rules to feed his family vs. fill his pocketbook by having better ratings...Ted sucks.

Just lost all respect for him.

You don't hunt black bear to feed your family. How is it different than hunting for sport or a trophy on your wall?

[Drano]

With my bear hands.

Fixed it for you.

Get it? Bear, bare?

Nevermind... :silly:

[The Black Knight]

You don't hunt black bear to feed your family. How is it different than hunting for sport or a trophy on your wall?

Some people do. Last year's archery hunt my friends and I ran into a guy that just got a sow. We were in deer haven and he got it on just the other side of the highway. Said he loves the meat and so does his family. Can't say as I'd eat bear but if he is using it for food for his family really can't look down on him for that.

[brennahm]

Jeebus. Nugent's a dumbass for not "knowing" the regs. He has a goddam hunting show fer chrissakes.

Glad it's season for dumbass newbs like Dhearkt to show up...

[Wrider]

Some people do. Last year's archery hunt my friends and I ran into a guy that just got a sow. We were in deer haven and he got it on just the other side of the highway. Said he loves the meat and so does his family. Can't say as I'd eat bear but if he is using it for food for his family really can't look down on him for that.

Exactly. Some do. From what I hear it's a bit greasy and tough, but it's still meat and still edible.

[#1Townie]

Fixed it for you.

Get it? Bear, bare?

Nevermind... :silly:
Haha yeah i almost spelled it like that but with my horrible spelling i didnt think anyone would notice.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

think you're over reacting a touch. There's a big difference between "fucking poacher" and making a mistake and accepting the consequences.
I agree. What happened is not even CLOSE to the definition of poaching. He obviously hate's Ted for his political views. If he indeed made a concerted effort to find the bear, and COULD not, then he did what he could. Now, it sounds like he was in violation simply for not knowing that a woulded bear is considered a "killed" bear, even if it's a scratch. In that case, it's his guide I blame, not so much Ted. Sounds like he manned up, and did right. The poaching label is pure political bullshit.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Ummm...nice try with all the "the arrow only touched the animal" blah, blah, blah. He was found guilty. If the arrow only touched the bear, the judgement would have gone the other way.
He wasn't "FOUND" anything, especially "guilty". He too a plea deal, and admitted guilt. I'm sure they had no evidence and are simply going on what Ted and others said. If THEY couldn't find the bear, think the Rangers could? And, if Ted had REALLY hurt the bear, he's an ethical hunter and would have finished it. Also, it would be EASIER for him to find and finish off a hurt bear than to stalk and kill a non-woulded one.

[The Black Knight]

I agree. What happened is not even CLOSE to the definition of poaching. He obviously hate's Ted for his political views. If he indeed made a concerted effort to find the bear, and COULD not, then he did what he could. Now, it sounds like he was in violation simply for not knowing that a woulded bear is considered a "killed" bear, even if it's a scratch. In that case, it's his guide I blame, not so much Ted. Sounds like he manned up, and did right. The poaching label is pure political bullshit.

The thing is Frank, in the state of CO the hunter is responsible for knowing all laws, regulations and boundaries. I'm sure it's the same in Alaska and most states. You can't blame your guide or anyone else when you get caught. The phrase " I didn't/don't know" won't hold water with a forest ranger. Because their reply back is "that's not my problem and it's your responsibility to know" everything you are supposed to know. If Ted is going to hunt out of state he needs to know that states laws.

[modette99]

I picture a "wound" as being a fetal blow, however the definition is not that. I bet a lot of people picture it being more fetal per the use of the word.

Technically a wound is: "An injury to living tissue caused by a cut, blow, or other impact, typically one in which the skin is cut or broken."

So I guess he did wound the first bear even if it was a paper cut. Funny part is we all know (even me as a non hunter) that if I pay money and hunt and I only have one tag for one bear and without cameras or anything and its a surface wound I'm going to take out another bear. No real injustice was done....not if that first bear walked away to live another day.

Hunting tags are a joke...

I'm against hunting for sport, seems silly to me. But if your eating the meat and that is why you hunt, I see nothing wrong with it. That right should be a basic right we all should have to feed ourselves. After all before modern times (not that long ago actually) that is how one ate...if I decided to go up to the mountains and live away from civilization do you think I would care about hunting tags and what have you!!! It be about survival. I know I be asked "but Mark Ted is rich and has no reason to hunt". True, but I feel it is all of our natural rights to hunt to eat, and monetary statues in our 'civilized' world should not matter.

Is it not true CO has a lottery to hunt certain game (one per lifetime)? And tags cost $$$$...which means it is a money maker and not anything else.

[modette99]

The thing is Frank, in the state of CO the hunter is responsible for knowing all laws, regulations and boundaries. I'm sure it's the same in Alaska and most states. You can't blame your guide or anyone else when you get caught. The phrase " I didn't/don't know" won't hold water with a forest ranger. Because their reply back is "that's not my problem and it's your responsibility to know" everything you ate supposed to know. If Ted is going to hunt out of state he needs to know that states laws.

Then he be the smartest person int he world...too many laws to learn and memorize them all. Just saying. I hate people that use the but its your duty to know.

As I touched on, be a much better country if hunting laws (laws in general) were country based and not state based. Then yes, you could actually know the laws, and there be no excuse.

[The Black Knight]

Then he be the smartest person int he world...too many laws to learn and memorize them all. Just saying. I hate people that use the but its your duty to know.

As I touched on, be a much better country if hunting laws (laws in general) were country based and not state based. Then yes, you could actually know the laws, and there be no excuse.

Yeah well this is reality and states have their own laws. Oh and if you hate the whole "it's your duty to know guys" go do some infraction in the hills and find out what the ranger has to say to your whole mindset. You'll get broke off with a nice fine and points off your license or revocation of it.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

The thing is Frank, in the state of CO the hunter is responsible for knowing all laws, regulations and boundaries. I'm sure it's the same in Alaska and most states. You can't blame your guide or anyone else when you get caught. The phrase " I didn't/don't know" won't hold water with a forest ranger. Because their reply back is "that's not my problem and it's your responsibility to know" everything you ate supposed to know. If Ted is going to hunt out of state he needs to know that states laws.
Well, It was the guide's responsibility to tell Ted, and make sure he knew. doesn't sound like the guide knew, so I still blame him because that's his JOB. :)

[#1Townie]

Wow frank your thought process is fun to watch.

[grim]

Wow frank your thought process is fun to watch.

You call that a thought process, I call that pointing the finger which Frank seems to be very fond of.

[Ghost]

You call that a thought process, I call that pointing the finger which Frank seems to be very fond of.

If he asks you to pull or sniff it, don't.

[grim]

If he asks you to pull or sniff it, don't.

I think he has had more up his ass than his finger.

[#1Townie]

You call that a thought process, I call that pointing the finger which Frank seems to be very fond of.

Im betting in his mind the guide was like a native american or something. Some for of keeping the white man down. One thread he cares very little for personal responsibility and the other he his like fuck em shouldnt have dont that. Lol

[Ghost]

I think he has had more up his ass than his finger.

You mean that gay elk he was fantasizing about?

[#1Townie]

I thought the only beast lover around was the bulldog guy. Something about edible underwear on cats or something?

[Ghost]

I thought the only beast lover around was the bulldog guy. Something about edible underwear on cats or something?

Frank prefers wildlife to domestic pets. He went on some long-winded tangent about watching gay elk and how he wished he was one of them.

[grim]

I post one thing and this thread gets derailed.

[Ghost]

I post one thing and this thread gets derailed.

Wasn't that the point of your post?

[The Black Knight]

Well, It was the guide's responsibility to tell Ted, and make sure he knew. doesn't sound like the guide knew, so I still blame him because that's his JOB. :)
Again Frank, that still doesn't fly in a court of law if you have to go to court. The Forest Ranger or State Ranger will show up and present the case. He'll pull up the exact statute where it says "it is the hunters responsibility and his alone" to know his laws and guidelines.

Remember the "tag" for the animal is made out in your name and you're responsible for it.

Luckily I'm pretty by the book when it comes to hunting and I've never had an infraction. However, one of my friends last year got nailed for hunting on the wrong side of his Units boundaries. He told the Ranger that he thought he was in the right Unit. Explained that he thought he was in his right boundary. Still didn't matter, Ranger told him, he needed to know his shit for certain and then got smacked with a fine and had the meat taken away from him, that led to court. Where he not only paid the fine, lost ALL of his hunting privileges for one year. He can't do jack shit or come close to anything that has to do with game licenses. Can't even fish.

When it comes to hunting on BLM land, you don't mess with the Feds in that instance.

[grim]

Wasn't that the point of your post?

Initially? No, but i'll allow it.

[Ghost]

Again Frank, that still doesn't fly in a court of law if you have to go to court. The Forest Ranger or State Ranger will show up and present the case. He'll pull up the exact statute where it says "it is the hunters responsibility and his alone" to know his laws and guidelines.

Remember the "tag" for the animal is made out in your name and you're responsible for it.

Luckily I'm pretty by the book when it comes to hunting and I've never had an infraction. However, one of my friends last year got nailed for hunting on the wrong side of his Units boundaries. He told the Ranger that he thought he was in the right Unit. Explained that he thought he was in his right boundary. Still didn't matter, Ranger told him, he needed to know his shit for certain and then got smacked with a fine and had the meat taken away from him, that led to court. Where he not only paid the fine, lost ALL of his hunting privileges for one year. He can't do jack shit or come close to anything that has to do with game licenses. Can't even fish.

When it comes to hunting on BLM land, you don't mess with the Feds in that instance.

BK--your making sense won't have any impact on Frank's ability to make none.

[The Black Knight]

BK--your making sense won't have any impact on Frank's ability to make none.
LOL!!

[Nick_Ninja]

This thread is all WIN :up:

[grim]

This thread is all WIN :up:

You could care less about the topic you just love all the Frank bashing.

Although i cant say i'm any better.

[#1Townie]

This thread is all about the win. Lol

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Again Frank, that still doesn't fly in a court of law if you have to go to court. The Forest Ranger or State Ranger will show up and present the case. He'll pull up the exact statute where it says "it is the hunters responsibility and his alone" to know his laws and guidelines.

Remember the "tag" for the animal is made out in your name and you're responsible for it.

Luckily I'm pretty by the book when it comes to hunting and I've never had an infraction. However, one of my friends last year got nailed for hunting on the wrong side of his Units boundaries. He told the Ranger that he thought he was in the right Unit. Explained that he thought he was in his right boundary. Still didn't matter, Ranger told him, he needed to know his shit for certain and then got smacked with a fine and had the meat taken away from him, that led to court. Where he not only paid the fine, lost ALL of his hunting privileges for one year. He can't do jack shit or come close to anything that has to do with game licenses. Can't even fish.

When it comes to hunting on BLM land, you don't mess with the Feds in that instance.
Court, yes, I agree but if I'm paying a guide, I expect him to tell me everything I need to know about hunting in an area.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Wow frank your thought process is fun to watch.
I'd imagine that for one who has none it would be. :p:)

[#1Townie]

Haha. Yup. Im the one with blinders on. Enjoy your repo tv shows.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

If he asks you to pull or sniff it or lick it, don't.
....and people said you couldn't learn from experience......:p

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Haha. Yup. Im the one with blinders on. Enjoy your repo tv shows.
Dood, you gotta admit that's funny as hell. Kinda like watching COPS. ;)

[#1Townie]

No its really not. Actually those shows made things worse. You realize that people use those shows to try to ban repo right? Any idea how hard it would be to get a loan if the bank cant secure it?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

No its really not. Actually those shows made things worse. You realize that people use those shows to try to ban repo right? Any idea how hard it would be to get a loan if the bank cant secure it?
I'm not sure I buy that conspiracy theory, but I think repo-ing property will never go away, and it shouldn't.

[#1Townie]

I'm not sure I buy that conspiracy theory, but I think repo-ing property will never go away, and it shouldn't.

http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/special_projects/auto/report-repo-madness.pdf

Theres one of the articles that uses false facts to discredit repo.

[mathman1000]

http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/special_projects/auto/report-repo-madness.pdf

Theres one of the articles that uses false facts to discredit repo.

Oh come on now!!! This is a bunch of liberal conspiracy bullshit! Taking away the rights of the white man. Those shows are all TRUTH.........duh! :lol::slap:

[RCStylin']

BK--your making sense won't have any impact on Frank's ability to make none.

ROTFLOL