|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117 registered members (CNC, Jmfire722, Frogeye, Red Fox, Emile, MS_Hunter, JHL, CKyleC, Scdoghunter667, goodman_hunter, kyles, JA, GATA87, RCHRR, Cynical, GoldenEagle, UA Hunter, garyc, Okatuppa, Bowfish, Gary Harris, billrv, low wall, Mdees, BCLC, specialk, mw2015, Nowlide, Robert D., BC, jaredhunts, OutdoorsAL, Raspy, eclipse829, sloughfoot, Narrow Gap, Ten37, Backwards cowboy, Solothurn, BPI, Big AL 76, top cat, metalmuncher, nomercy, Drycreek, treemydog, OlTimer, Tree Hanger, AU coonhunter, 3bailey3, Ridge Life, desertdog, M48scout, DoubleShoalsJR, Cfh76, hue, longshot, AJones, ImThere, sanderson, AlabamaSwamper, dtmwtp, Whiskey9, JAM, outdoorguy88, Wildboar14, GHTiger10, mathews prostaff, Tall Dog, Chiller, MarksOutdoors, bamabeagler, wk2hnt, Showout, fishingbucks, AWT6, Zbrann, bodock, David Ellis, thayerp81, mjs14, BigUncleLeroy, SC53, CeeHawk37, TurkeyJoe, quailman, robinhedd, jake5050, jaydub12, Snuffy, weatherby, jw706, foldemup, Scout308, auburn17, Bmyers142, bamafarmer, 10 POINT, Keysbowman, MTeague, gobblebox, RUGRAT45, AU338MAG, 14 invisible),
536
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Salt/Mineral Licks Legal?
[Re: leroyb]
#351612
06/17/12 09:45 AM
06/17/12 09:45 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
leroyb, So is it legal to hunt in the "Area" of these licks? First, let me reiterate what troy told you. If you rely on the Hunter's Digest, your ignorance of the law may get you in trouble, but, then again, it's vaguness and conflict with the law could even help your case if you get a ticket. So what is the definition of an "area"? Is it two feet or 20 miles? The legislature cannot agree on a defintion, and the DCNR can't do it either. Both have tried more than once, and both have failed more than once. It's my opinion that both our legislators and the DCNR know that 9-11-244 and 9-11-245 are unconstitutionally vague as currently enforced. Neither wants to bear the blame for allowing hunting over bait. Both know that the courts are bound to strike such vague laws down if they are challenged with competent legal representation. In that case, the courts will take the blame for allowing hunting over bait. That's what they prefer, IMO. In the mean time, the DCNR will continue to collect hunter's paychecks. There is no incentive for them to clear this up. If you want to read our game and fish laws and the Regulation Book for yourself, let me know and I'll post the links for you.
|
|
|
|
