Hunting Washington Forum

Big Game Hunting => Deer Hunting => Topic started by: boneaddict on December 10, 2014, 09:42:11 AM

Title: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: boneaddict on December 10, 2014, 09:42:11 AM: If this is on here already, let me know, but I thought you'd enjoy

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1417978940nu7xebnbt3a (http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1417978940nu7xebnbt3a)
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 10, 2014, 09:47:12 AM: Nice.
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: MLBowhunting on December 10, 2014, 09:48:29 AM: WOW now thats no slap on the wrist. :tup:
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: vandeman17 on December 10, 2014, 09:58:04 AM: What exactly is a reimbursable damage assessment?
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: Widgeondeke on December 10, 2014, 10:07:34 AM: While I am super glad to see they got serious time :tup: and fines, unfortunately the fines will most likely never be paid in full :bash:

More sentence like these and we might, I say MIGHT see less poaching :twocents:
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: quadrafire on December 10, 2014, 10:12:39 AM: Couple real winners there.

I always laugh at the revocation of hunting licenses penalty. Don't need a license to poach
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: Gringo31 on December 10, 2014, 10:24:24 AM: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on December 10, 2014, 10:35:50 AM: I wish this state would take notes! That's how it should be! 👍
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on December 10, 2014, 10:48:28 AM: I believe the reimbursable damage assessment is Idaho's version of a civil penalty: it's not a fine, it is reimbursement to the state for the value of state-owned resources taken. It usually goes back to the wildlife agency, whereas fines generally do not.
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: vandeman17 on December 10, 2014, 10:50:00 AM: Quote from: DOUBLELUNG on December 10, 2014, 10:48:28 AM
I believe the reimbursable damage assessment is Idaho's version of a civil penalty: it's not a fine, it is reimbursement to the state for the value of state-owned resources taken. It usually goes back to the wildlife agency, whereas fines generally do not.

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure if it was similar to a bond or something that if they had "good behavior" or something that they wouldn't end up paying.
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: elkoholic1 on December 10, 2014, 11:05:20 AM: :tup:
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 10, 2014, 11:09:53 AM: Love to see wildlife poaching get that kind of attention in WA. It's a pity it doesn't.
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: mfswallace on December 10, 2014, 11:14:50 AM: From the article-----This was an especially egregious case of poaching, because the animals were killed at a time of the year when they are very vulnerable and concentrated on the winter range. The investigation showed that several more animals were wounded and never recovered. :yike:

Sounds like these kinds of actions shouldn't be tolerated no matter who you are if it is "especially egregious" :twocents:
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 10, 2014, 04:04:13 PM: Quote from: mfswallace on December 10, 2014, 11:14:50 AM
From the article-----This was an especially egregious case of poaching, because the animals were killed at a time of the year when they are very vulnerable and concentrated on the winter range. The investigation showed that several more animals were wounded and never recovered. :yike:

Sounds like these kinds of actions shouldn't be tolerated no matter who you are if it is "especially egregious" :twocents:

I see what you did there. :stirthepot: :peep:
Title: Re: Idaho Poaching Spree NAILED
Post by: duckmen1 on December 10, 2014, 07:12:24 PM: Quote from: Boss .300 winmag on December 10, 2014, 04:04:13 PM
Quote from: mfswallace on December 10, 2014, 11:14:50 AM
From the article-----This was an especially egregious case of poaching, because the animals were killed at a time of the year when they are very vulnerable and concentrated on the winter range. The investigation showed that several more animals were wounded and never recovered. :yike:

Sounds like these kinds of actions shouldn't be tolerated no matter who you are if it is "especially egregious" :twocents:

I see what you did there. :stirthepot: :peep:

Oh ya. But I agree