California Illegal Hunter Gets $20,000 Fine.

[George P]

And with income tax, social security, medicare, health insurance, and possibly college tuition, what percentage do you think the average taxpayer here is paying? Their universities are free.

No matter what, it's still a capitalist economy.

Seriously? Where did you study economics?

TANSTAAFL...............never was, never will be

 

[Highland Lofts]

This thread sure took a different twist.

 

[buck460XVR]

A fine is for what you did, not for what you might do.

Yep, and if you read the link I posted, you know the poacher knew exactly what the fine might be.....before he took the shot. In my state, shoot an illegal deer from your truck and they can take your truck along with the deer, your guns and your hunting privileges. Most newer 4dr/4wd trucks go for a lot more than $20,000. Every year there are stories about a farmer shooting a deer form the cab of his $60,000 combine, getting caught and having to go to the DNR auction and buy the combine back. These aren't folks who shot a doe by mistake or got excited and shot a deer they shouldn't have. These are folks that planned to shoot something illegally and knew the consequences if they got caught.......and they got caught. Now folks are feeling sorry for them? These "oh, it's just a deer" posts makes me question what kind of hunting ethics we have here.

A $500 fine and loss of hunting priliviges for a year or two would be a fair sentence for shooting a deer you just happen to come across But, baiting, and shooting a deer out of season maybe double the fine and increase the loss of hunting priviliges for ten years would good as well..

The deer taken by the California Hunter was not a deer he just happened to "come across". Odds are he knew for a quite a while it was there and had not been able to take it legally. This was not a deer taken by a father down and out, trying to feed his family. This was a "once in a lifetime" deer that was taken illegally for the sole purpose of boosting his image among his peers. It wasn't a single illegal act but a series of illegal acts. Big bucks have become big "bucks". Go to a high fence deer ranch and 200" bucks will cost you 10 grand. Bigger bucks will cost you as much as the fine imposed. The Fine imposed was not indicative of the hunters income, but of the buck's worth. California has recognized this and made the fines appropriate, the whole premise of their new "Trophy Hunting" laws. This was not "a case of an anti-hunting judge taking an opportunity to stick it to a hunter", but a judge following the letter of those laws. I would assume if there is an appeal, that those others charges that were dropped in the plea deal, could be brought back too. Legal fees and the odds of winning the appeal may make the paying of the fines, the cheaper route. One wonders if the loss of hunting privileges will mean anything to this poacher. Most convicted poachers with prohibited hunting privileges continue to hunt illegally, especially those with private land to hunt on.

 

[Highland Lofts]

And mean while the scum bag that killed Kate Stienly is still an illegal, still walking the streets of california and stll a murderer while this guy gets a $20,000 fine fir shooting a deer. They both knew what they were doing but being an illegal you get a free pass out of jail.

 

[CraigC]

These "oh, it's just a deer" posts makes me question what kind of hunting ethics we have here.

And those defending outrageous government extortion make me question things too but I try not to make it personal. You can read what I've already posted to know how I feel about real, habitual poachers. I hunt property every year that does not even require me to have a hunting license. I get one anyway, just to support my state's wildlife department. Hell, it's even on auto-renewal. I follow the letter of the law and use the means legal for the season I'm in. So your "questioning of ethics" is unwarranted, unjustified, unprovoked and downright insulting.

There are seven in my back yard right now. Is that $140,000 the state government is somehow entitled to?

The costs for killing critters behind high fences has nothing to do with what the state thinks they're worth. Apples and oranges but I already know you look down your nose at such operations so I wouldn't expect you to know much about it.

 

[buck460XVR]

And those defending outrageous government extortion make me question things too but I try not to make it personal..

I don't see how any of this is extortion. Again, the guy knew the consequences of his actions. If not, he was not a responsible hunter. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. There's a sign down the road from me that say "$500 Fine for littering". If I litter and get caught, should I cry about the $500 fine? Should I rant about it being extortion? I could I 'spose........

I hunt property every year that does not even require me to have a hunting license. I get one anyway, just to support my state's wildlife department. Hell, it's even on auto-renewal. I follow the letter of the law and use the means legal for the season I'm in. So your "questioning of ethics" is unwarranted, unjustified, unprovoked and downright insulting.

In Hunter Safety we teach that there is a difference between what's legal and ethics. Is it legal to take any shot opportunities presented to you in the field, regardless of how low the percentage is? Of course it is. Is it ethical? That's for the individual to determine. But, IME, those folks with the "Oh, it's just a deer" attitude are the one's most likely to take those low percentage shots. Kinda where I was going.

There are seven in my back yard right now. Is that $140,000 the state government is somehow entitled to?

I don't know. Depends on how your state defines who owns them. In Wisconsin, wild deer are owned by the state, so if they make the law that it will cost you $20,000 a piece to shoot them illegally, and you do, and get caught, I'd guess you'd owe the state $140,000 unless you can plea it down. Still not extortion. Not by definition.

The costs for killing critters behind high fences has nothing to do with what the state thinks they're worth. Apples and oranges but I already know you look down your nose at such operations so I wouldn't expect you to know much about it.

Oh, I probably know more than you want to think. I didn't say anything disparagingly about the High Fence operations in my post, only using what the value they put on trophy deer to put the fine for illegally shooting a wild trophy deer in perspective. It also was to show that the gentleman could have probably shot a deer with similar trophy characteristics, much easier and legally on one of those operations. Again, to put the fine in perspective.

This thread is not about how folks hunt legally. This thread is about a poacher that knew the risks and then had to face the consequences when confronted with them. I doubt very much if those folks that have to pay the $500 fine for littering thinks it's appropriate either, but back when the fine was only $25, the roadsides were nuttin' but a dirt dumpster. Upping the fine to the high level makes folks think twice about throwing out their Happy Meal box. Used to be the fine for shooting a illegal deer was 0nly $100 around here. Poaching was rampant. They increased the fine to $1800+ and poaching was greatly reduced because the penalty made poaching less attractive. Seems this is what California is trying to do with their trophy animals. Odds are, with the pressure put on trophy animals, more states will be taking the same perspective.

 

[CraigC]

Yes, I understand if he knew the fine was $20,000 and he knew that before taking the shot. That ain't the point. The point here is that the fine shouldn't be that high in the first place. Do you think the hunter's vote counts for as much in California as it does where you or I live?

He already had a tag and used it, so you can't really say he stole the deer from the state or its residents. The point here is that if the deer was really worth $20,000, it wouldn't cost pennies on the dollar to buy a tag and hunt them. That metric doesn't apply to high fence ranches, where the owner's investment is significant. No, it's a fine and it's high because the state doesn't give a damn about those who it might be inflicted upon, whether what they did was intentional or not. They do it because they can and the voice in opposition would fall upon deaf ears. If they put a $20,000 tax on abortions, then you'd hear about it on CNN.

It is extortion but that's really a discussion for another day.

And I NEVER said there should be no penalty at all. That it was "just a deer" as if a deer is a worthless or nuisance animal (although it often is). I said the penalty was too severe, given the often lame penalties for other more serious crimes. Shall we fine people $10,000 for shooting the squirrel that's chewing on their house? Or should we have a little more sense about it?

This will be a much more productive discussion without the high horse act.

 

[jmr40]

They increased the fine to $1800+ and poaching was greatly reduced because the penalty made poaching less attractive.

$1800 is much more reasonable and no where near $20,000

There's a sign down the road from me that say "$500 Fine for littering". If I litter and get caught, should I cry about the $500 fine?

$500 isn't $20,000. If you were fined $20,000 for littering you'd cry.

California has recognized this and made the fines appropriate, the whole premise of their new "Trophy Hunting" laws.

That was a nice deer, but not a trophy deer.

Not excusing the guy. Just saying the punishment doesn't fit the crime when many much worse things are going on where there is either no punishment or it is very light in comparison.

 

[Demi-human]

Anyone else think it’s strange to be under surveillance for three years for baiting deer before being charged? Was this East Germ— I mean eastern California?

Four hundred dollars for the deer, $19,600 for forging signatures on state documents sounds about right.

A seventy year old man should know better, and both stories are written like a shock piece, though I think it’s more involved than “What?! Today’s Sunday, not Saturday?! Oh Crap!”

He is a low life poacher, a thief, scum bag, cheat...

...Father, Grandfather, Husband and Widower, and War Veteran.
Cancer survivor, friend and clergy member.
Mechanic, valet, tutor, chef and taxpayer.
And lifelong hunter.
And maybe only once has his judgment lapsed.
Perhaps from the waning days...

But don’t let your righteousness be less indignant.
I’m sure he’s a drug runner for the cartel, we already have proof he’s a murderer...


Ethics is always brought up with Hunting. Yet it never seems to be about how we treat man, just how we kill animals.

We don’t have to worry about how we treat the upright, we should scrutinize how we punish the fallible.

 

[buck460XVR]

$1800 is much more reasonable and no where near $20,000

....but that $1800 is the fine for just shooting an illegal deer. Any deer, and not within "trophy deer enhancements". It also does not include the fines for other violations committed during the same act. We don;t really know everything about the California Poacher other than he committed multiple hunting violations plus forged a signature on a official document. Other charges were dropped....and odds are were part of a plea down.

$500 isn't $20,000. If you were fined $20,000 for littering you'd cry.

Sorry, but I cry about the $500, but the only one to blame would be me for being so stupid when I knew the consequences. Same can be said about the poacher. Odds are, if the fine for littering was $20,000, you'd never see a Happy Meal box on the shoulder of the road.

That was a nice deer, but not a trophy deer.

I dunno, but it must be according to the State of California under their so called Trophy Deer enhancements". If it's a Blacktail, it's a pretty good deer.

Four hundred dollars for the deer, $19,600 for forging signatures on state documents sounds about right.

The other crimes is what other seem to disregard.

And lifelong hunter.
And maybe only once has his judgment lapsed.
Perhaps from the waning days...

....according to the articles, he had been watched for years because of suspected baiting. These previous suspicions may have been what brought attention to the forged document in the first place. Waning years does not a excuse make. This was not a case of poor judgement by someone with dimming mentality. This was a planned and intricate act, and odds are, like many other poachers was not the only act ever committed, just the only one caught.

Ethics is always brought up with Hunting. Yet it never seems to be about how we treat man, just how we kill animals.

We don’t have to worry about how we treat the upright, we should scrutinize how we punish the fallible.

Ethics, while different than morals, are intertwined. IME, folks that treat animals like crap, generally do the same to their fellow man. Folks that rape mother Nature seem to be the ones that take advantage of their neighbors and friends also. It comes down to the "all about me" attitude. We as hunters want to be respected and not looked down upon. That means we need to be responsible and project a positive image. That means in order to gain that respect, we need to actually be "upright" and not turn our heads and give inappropriate sympathy to those who flagrantly tarnish that image. This isn;t just about the value of one "trophy" deer. This is about the protection of all the trophy deer out there. Not to prevent them from being killed by legitimate hunters, but to protect them from those who have no regard for them or the rules the rest of us abide by.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So if you're stopped for doing 10mph over the speed limit in a Ferrari your fine should be higher than the guy who does the same thing in a Datsun???

As noted, it may have been a plea deal relative to the other charges that were dropped. He was not fined beyond the boundaries of the law for the offenses of which he was convicted. However, as part of the plea, he may have paid fines comparable to all the offenses which were within the fine limits of the convictions he received. If this is the case, people should not be complaining because it sounds like they cut him a lot of slack by having few offenses go on his record.

A fair fine is any fine within the parameters of the law that was broken for which there is a conviction. Upon breaking the law, the poacher or speeder is then on the hook for whatever fine that is assessed under the law. A law breaker may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That isn't always the case, but that is the risk that the lawbreaker runs when breaking the law. If you don't like what the fullest extent entails, then work with your legislators to get punishments reduced.

It isn't like this was a one time poacher who shot a yearling out of season to get some meat. This guy was blatantly trying to cheat the system for personal gain not out of necessity. To use your speeding example, it would be sort of like the difference between simple inadvertent speeding when running late for work and getting busted for racing.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Yes, I understand if he knew the fine was $20,000 and he knew that before taking the shot. That ain't the point. The point here is that the fine shouldn't be that high in the first place. Do you think the hunter's vote counts for as much in California as it does where you or I live?

OK well you're arguing that the penalty is too much, and perhaps you're right...in Tennessee...., but the people of California have decided that differently. What would you say if a lib-**** was yelling about how small the fines were for game infractions in Tennessee where you live? Probably tell the lib-**** to mind their own business...well in this case it IS their own business. YES the hunter's vote counts as ONE vote, so do the rest of the votes. Counts the same in California as it does in Texas or where I live in Maryland.

He already had a tag and used it, so you can't really say he stole the deer from the state or its residents.

So if I buy one item, and then intentionally take two of that item, that's alright? Huh?

The point here is that if the deer was really worth $20,000, it wouldn't cost pennies on the dollar to buy a tag and hunt them. No, it's a fine and it's high because the state doesn't give a damn about those who it might be inflicted upon, whether what they did was intentional or not.

It has nothing to do with the "worth" of the animal.... For more than a couple of centuries, the courts have been able to award punitive damages. If you're against that, that's fine, but understand that If you are then a burglar who jimmies a door so that it isn't damaged, and only takes a hundred dollars or so of stuff, would NEVER be able to get more than a tiny sentence upon being convicted, because the worth of what was damaged and what was taken was sooo small.

If they put a $20,000 tax on abortions, then you'd hear about it on CNN.

Yes but how this relates to the poaching fine is almost a non sequitur. This is apples vs. anvils....

And I NEVER said there should be no penalty at all. That it was "just a deer" as if a deer is a worthless or nuisance animal (although it often is). I said the penalty was too severe, given the often lame penalties for other more serious crimes. Shall we fine people $10,000 for shooting the squirrel that's chewing on their house? Or should we have a little more sense about it?

Again you're railing against what the voters in another state have decided upon. Seems a bit silly to become so engaged over what you cannot change. We can all agree that the more serious crimes should get a greater penalty. Most of the people involved in the "we" of which I write...don't live there, nor would I. Prison for taking down a political poster as a souvenir, as one young chap apparently did in a foreign country? Wow, never happen here, but there isn't here...neither is Kaliforиia

It is extortion but that's really a discussion for another day.

LD

 

[CraigC]

Who's enraged??? I'm not enraged, not even with the obvious snarky tone of your post.

And I'm sure that the gun owners and hunters of California do not think they are not properly represented in their state. Nor is anyone else who feels the same way, yet reside in a state with very large cities. Ahem, you ought to know what that's like.


ex·tor·tion
/ikˈstôrSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

You see, in a pure democracy, which the US is not, the majority rules and is able to victimize the minority however they see fit. In a constitutional republic, ALL citizens are protected by rule of law and not easily victimized (extorted) by the mob. Hence my example of a hefty fine on abortions but apparently you completely missed my point.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Anyone else think it’s strange to be under surveillance for three years for baiting deer before being charged? Was this East Germ— I mean eastern California?

Four hundred dollars for the deer, $19,600 for forging signatures on state documents sounds about right.

A seventy year old man should know better, and both stories are written like a shock piece, though I think it’s more involved than “What?! Today’s Sunday, not Saturday?! Oh Crap!”



...Father, Grandfather, Husband and Widower, and War Veteran.
Cancer survivor, friend and clergy member.
Mechanic, valet, tutor, chef and taxpayer.
And lifelong hunter.
And maybe only once has his judgment lapsed.
Perhaps from the waning days...

But don’t let your righteousness be less indignant.
I’m sure he’s a drug runner for the cartel, we already have proof he’s a murderer...


Ethics is always brought up with Hunting. Yet it never seems to be about how we treat man, just how we kill animals.

We don’t have to worry about how we treat the upright, we should scrutinize how we punish the fallible.

He may be all that and a "lifelong hunter" to you but to me he is a liar, a thief, a cheater, a poacher and I'd bet better than even money he is a trespasser to. If you want it to be about how we should treat him I can comment on that to but I will give you a clue. Criminals are not punish nearly harshly enough.

 

[Jack Ryan]

And mean while the scum bag that killed Kate Stienly is still an illegal, still walking the streets of california and stll a murderer while this guy gets a $20,000 fine fir shooting a deer. They both knew what they were doing but being an illegal you get a free pass out of jail.

If you want to put each of them on their own end of the same rope, I'm ok with it. If you want to let a liar, thief, poacher scum bag skate because your found someone worse who beat the rap, you'll need a better argument.

 

[Demi-human]

So, now we hang poachers?

I am always leery of humans that put animals before other humans. (Calm down, I mean California State.)
I’ll repeat that I agree with the fines. Break the law, pay the price.
Just not the zeal.
Around here, when retribution is paid, we help the fallen up, not brand them with an iron.

There was an old carpenter that had a saying about this...
Well, I better see myself out. G’day Gents.

 

[CraigC]

He may be all that and a "lifelong hunter" to you but to me he is a liar, a thief, a cheater, a poacher and I'd bet better than even money he is a trespasser to. If you want it to be about how we should treat him I can comment on that to but I will give you a clue. Criminals are not punish nearly harshly enough.

If you want to put each of them on their own end of the same rope, I'm ok with it. If you want to let a liar, thief, poacher scum bag skate because your found someone worse who beat the rap, you'll need a better argument.

Sorry but all that is a little hysterical. He shot a deer out of season. On his own property. With a tag. Let's maintain some perspective here.

He 'could' be a rapist too but as far as we know, there is ZERO evidence to support any of that.

He shot the deer on his own property so that wouldn't seem to indicate that he's a trespasser.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Sorry but all that is a little hysterical. He shot a deer out of season. On his own property. With a tag. Let's maintain some perspective here.

He 'could' be a rapist too but as far as we know, there is ZERO evidence to support any of that.

He shot the deer on his own property so that wouldn't seem to indicate that he's a trespasser.

Let's keep a little perspective here. You are right. The fact that it was on his property doesn't matter because the deer wasn't his property. He shot it out of season while baiting it. Shooting out of season is illegal. Baiting is illegal there. That he had a tag and tagged it mean that he committed fraud by illegally filling out a government document. He then forged the signature of an official saying that the deer was legal. By the way, you don't get to have tags for out of season deer. So he didn't actually have a tag for this deer.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/californ...erty-after-season-forging-officials-signature

No, there is no evidence he trespassed, but you doing the same nonsense in the opposite direction by playing down his offenses.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Sorry but all that is a little hysterical. He shot a deer out of season. On his own property. With a tag. Let's maintain some perspective here.

He 'could' be a rapist too but as far as we know, there is ZERO evidence to support any of that.

He shot the deer on his own property so that wouldn't seem to indicate that he's a trespasser.

Sorry, I assumed every one here could read and understand English. It was clearly stated to be a degree of probability, SIMILAR to all the suppositions in the post I was replying to. Obviously nothing "hysterical" about it. The hysteria seems to me to be coming from the posters here who seem to identify with or have a personal interest in leniency toward deliberate criminals and specifically poachers.

 

[Highland Lofts]

DIVIDE & CONQUER.

 

[Highland Lofts]

This is getting to being a dead horse, i'm Done.

About time to lock.it up.

 

[CraigC]

Let's keep a little perspective here. You are right. The fact that it was on his property doesn't matter because the deer wasn't his property. He shot it out of season while baiting it. Shooting out of season is illegal. Baiting is illegal there. That he had a tag and tagged it mean that he committed fraud by illegally filling out a government document. He then forged the signature of an official saying that the deer was legal. By the way, you don't get to have tags for out of season deer. So he didn't actually have a tag for this deer.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/californ...erty-after-season-forging-officials-signature

No, there is no evidence he trespassed, but you doing the same nonsense in the opposite direction by playing down his offenses.

The fact that he was on his own property does matter. Lest you think armed trespassing is no big deal. As I said, the poster I was quoting said he was probably a trespasser so I was kinda directly responding to that.

He shot a deer out of season. No one is "downplaying" that. He did it. He got caught. He had a tag to shoot a deer, so in my opinion, you can't really call it "stealing". He just shot it out of season.

But he shot a deer. He didn't molest a child. He didn't break into someone's house. He didn't steal a car. He did not commit a violent offense against another person. He shot a friggin' deer and a member here thinks that's a hanging offense.

Sorry, I assumed every one here could read and understand English. It was clearly stated to be a degree of probability, SIMILAR to all the suppositions in the post I was replying to. Obviously nothing "hysterical" about it. The hysteria seems to me to be coming from the posters here who seem to identify with or have a personal interest in leniency toward deliberate criminals and specifically poachers.

Oh I read, comprehend and write English quite well, thank you very much. Your post was hysterical.

No, you're merely assuming he is a trespasser, despite the fact that he baited deer on his own property. So you're going to judge him as a trespasser because other poachers trespass? Don't we kinda have an issue with babies getting thrown out with the bathwater as gun owners??? I guess the Constitution doesn't apply to poachers.

Who said anything about being lenient? I'm fairly certain my argument is that the punishment should fit the crime. In this case, it doesn't. Nor does it warrant hanging.

 

[film495]

So if you're stopped for doing 10mph over the speed limit in a Ferrari your fine should be higher than the guy who does the same thing in a Datsun???

How much does that Ferrari being on the road cost everyone else in their annual policy to cover? A lot more than the price of a speeding ticket, times every car on the road … every year, year after year.

 

[LOLBELL]

Gonna have to side with Craig C here. That fine was excessive. It’s just a deer. I know that rubs some folks the wrong way here. He shot a deer on his own property with a tag. He used bait and was out of season. The state owns the deer during season and protects it whether it’s on your property or theirs and will fine you if you cause damage to the critter. Now if that deer that they own does damage to your car they no longer own it and are not responsible for damage it causes. (Follow the money).

If that deer is causing damage to the pea patch that is depended upon to feed your family you can’t despose of it without paying a hefty fine. You can however buy a pricey permit to take care of it. (Follow the money). Local GW suggested that I build a $10,000 high fence to keep the deer that they own, part time, from trespassing onto my own property and doing damage to my crops. (Follow the money).

Follow the money. Deer hunting is BIG business in the US. Anytime big money wants their way they get it. Now I deer hunt, but I don’t take it to the extreme. I try to put 6-8 in the freezer to eat every year. I do it legally. I shoot them off of property I own. I do not have to buy a license but I do, every year. I can not shoot those same 6-8 deer, and eat them, in August when they are eating my peas with out paying a heavy fine for each. (Follow the money).

I guess what I am saying is that this was a chance for Big Business to extort $20,000 from a guy because they could. If it would have been a 75lb doe the fine would have been ALOT less. There is not as much money to be made off of a small doe as a nice large buck. No he wasn’t a trophy but he was, as my brother would say “ a good’ern “

 

[buck460XVR]

And I'm sure that the gun owners and hunters of California do not think they are not properly represented in their state.

Upon doing research on California's "Enhanced Trophy Hunting" Regs, it seems that the new rules(including fines and jail sentences) and the characteristics of what designates a "Trophy" were endorsed and supported by a majority of the hunters in the state, and statewide hunting organizations. These same hunters and organizations helped to come up to what exactly determines what a "trophy" is among species and sometimes in what areas of the state.

ex·tor·tion
/ikˈstôrSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

I saw nothing about anyone forcing the poacher to shoot the animal. nor threatening him in order to get him to violate. Only the promise that he would be fined appropriately (as defined by his peers) for breaking the law and getting caught. None of this falls within the definition you provided.

He had a tag to shoot a deer, so in my opinion, you can't really call it "stealing". He just shot it out of season.

You keep repeating that over and over. The fact is, he did steal, the minute he shot the deer out of season, and by the regs of California, by using bait.

On his own property. With a tag. Let's maintain some perspective here.

The real perspective here is, that like other tags issued by other states, that tag is only valid for a specific species, during specific hunting seasons with appropriate weapons and according to all other laws on the books. Once the season is over, that tag is moot, and no longer valid. Once one tags a deer shot outside those parameters, he is now also guilty of illegal tagging. So many folks have this impression that just because they buy a tag, they are entitled to a deer. That's not how it works. You are entitled to have the opportunity to harvest a deer using legal methods. Period. Same goes for the old "it was his land" argument. If the state claims possession of game animals, while you own the land, you do not own the deer, and you still have to hunt within the confines of the law to harvest one. You might not agree with this, but that's how it works.

You are very defensive about the way you hunt, as we all are. We do not want others to criticize or chastise us because we do not hunt the way they do. Yet, look at those here that want to criticize these new hunting regs, even tho they do not pertain to them. There's a word for that. This guy knew at the time he bought his license what the rules were and what the consequences were if he broke those rules and got caught. If folks want to be critical, they should be critical of the poachers intelligence, not the California game laws. For folks that feel the need to use bait where it is legal, it may be hard to understand why some places do not allow it. Especially if they grew up using it. Especially when deer baiting products are so highly publicized. Still, one's ethics do not trump state or local game regs. One should have those ethics that make us feel compelled to follow game regs regardless of whether or not we agree with them.