Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Serious Deer Talk Forum Disputing a Deer baiting Citation - A Little Help?

Nope, I can't define area.

What if you were there the bait was on the other side of your property line? Would it still be simple?

A) Dude did not place the bait.
B) A "look around" would not provide evidence of bait.
C) Dude was a guest on unfamiliar property.
The intent is clearly not there, and any judge worth his lunch will toss the case.

If you KNEW the bait was there, i.e. could see it across the line, yes you would be guilty.

Sux, but true!

Now, since you are restricted by Law from 'checking' the property that you do not have permission to hunt on, if it was not obvious then you would not be guilty.

See, it ain't all that hard if you are constantly looking for loopholes and exceptions!

Again, Hogwild, you are incorrect. I just have to ask: did you even bother to read the Alabama Supreme Court decision cited earlier in this thread? If not, do us all a favor and read it before you give another opinion. Seriously. Please.

I have read it numerous times.
It is ALL about a loophole, or exception, that you claim to NOT be looking for!

Why are you so obsessed with acting innocent and ONLY wanting opinions that support you after you have already admitted guilt on a Public forum???

Hogwild, I really don't have the time or interest in researching for you the definition of 'loophole'. You are trying to have a debate, and yet you are not even able to comprehend the premise. I don't mean that to sound insulting - I just don't know how else to say it. I'm beginning to think that this topic and it's facets might be a little too much for you to get your arms around. Or you're just not interested in trying. I don't know you, so I have no way of knowing which.

Just understand this:

1) I have admitted to violating regluation.

2) My friend was charged with the violation. However, he did not commit the crime nor is he guilty of the infraction as it is defined by the ALABAMA SUPREME COURT. We're not talking about a 'technicality'. We're talking about the definition of the law.

I'm confident that this charge will be dismissed. My request in this thread was to obtain input from those that have had experience - even secondhand experience - in dealing with the judicial system with respect to this charge. You have so far added nothing that could be seen as addressing that request.. Correction - one post did address the request.

The fact that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant.

OK....

So, you think this:



is what qualifies you, or your buddy, for an exception.

BUT, the fact is that he was hunting with YOU, on YOUR land and YOU put the bait out. So, he should have known because YOU did.

Sorry if that simple fact escapes you, or you just can't get your arms around it!

Hogwild,

1) He did not place the bait there, so he did not know the bait was there.

2) I placed the bait there and did not tell him the bait was there, so he did not know the bait was there.

3) He walked to the stand alone and in the dark. He did not pass the bait on his way to the stand nor see the bait because it was 70 yards from the stand, brown in color, off the green field in the woodline, and would not have appeared as bait to any reasonable person. So, he did not know the bait was there.

4) I was hunting in another location over 1500 feet away, and did not communicate with him. So, he could not know the bait was there.

5) I will testify to the above facts during the trail.

You keep using the term 'exception' as if he is guilty of the offense but will be given a 'pass'.

What I am saying is that he is not guilty of the crime as defined by the Supreme Court. The reason he is not guilty of the crime is because he didn't commit the offense.

Because - "a conviction under � 9-11-244 requires a showing that the defendant either knew or should have known that the area over which he was hunting was baited"

And more importantly - "the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Phillips could be found guilty even without proof that he baited the field or knew that the field was baited."

Now, if you truly went thru the entire Supreme Court decision, you would have noted that this alleged baiting crime occurred on his (Philiips) property. It wasn't on the other side of a property line or something.

So, Hogwild, am I to understand that you feel that it was shown that he 'knew or should have known' because it occurred on my property and I was also hunting on my property that day? Are you saying that, in your eyes, this would suffice as proof?.

I bet you are saying that.

And how would you prove that he knew or should have known.

Question: If I shot an LSU fan and buried his body on the property near where I then instructed you to hunt, and I didn't tell you that I shot the LSU fan, nor where I buried his body, would that make you an accessory?

Show me how this is not the exact irrational logic that you are attempting to apply to this situation.

Show me this and I will quit.

Who thinks TGray is 49er in disguise?

Would you mind explaining why you think I would do that?

It was/is YOUR responsibility to inform AND his to ask.

The fact that you did NOT inform him does NOT relieve you, nor him, of that obligation.

Not to mention, I feel certain that I am feeding a troll by posting in this thread......

hey easy on the LSU fans, I am one of them.

nobody wants my input. But here it is. This reg remains on the books for one reason. INCOME.

guitly or not, you have to fight it. and most of the time it is cheapier to pay the fine.

THAT IS THE JEST OF IT.

So, you believe you are correct because you say so. You are unable to support your argument using logic. You cannot use the Supreme Court decision regarding baiting to back up your position. Got it.

Look, if you think I'm a troll, kindly drop out of this tread.

Thanks, Rob.

I got nothing against LSU fans. I could have said anything and someone would have perked up. It was just an example.

I think you're right about fighting it. The money is a small concern for him. The conviction is what bothers him.

What county did the arrest occur in?

Hey not a problem, at least I am not the man that got pissed on.

TGray,

Do me a favor.

Point out to the attorney that your friend has contacted that I have been requesting the pamphlet that is required to be published for general distribution by Section 9-2-8 Code of Alabama for several years now. William Gunter, the attorney the commissioner referred me to about my request, has told me that the commissioner has complied with the law. I still have not received a copy of the law pamphlet he refers to in the regulation pamphlet as having been published separately.

If the commissioner had provided you and your friend a copy of the subject law pamplet, your friend may have been put on notice that he could not hunt over bait. The law that prohibits hunting over bait is not included in the regulation pamplet.

Section 9-1-4 Code of Alabama says:


Both 9-2-8 and 9-11-244 are provisions of Title 9, the title referred to above. It's a misdemeanor for the commissioner not to furnish your friend a copy of the pamphlet referred to in 9-2-8, just as much as it is a misdemeanor for your friend to violate 9-11-244.

I'll be glad to furnish copies of my correspondence with the commissioner and his lawyer to your friend's attorney. It is in the form of emails and it wouldn't be a problem to share them.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, I agree. There is also no excuse for the commissioner not to furnish the law pamplet to hunters that is required of him to help them learn the game and fish laws they are required to obey.

The commissioner is not ignorant of these laws and the requirements placed on him. He cites the laws on pages 14-15 of the regulation pamplet he does publish.

It might be a good idea to summon the commissioner for questioning in your friend's trial about the general distribution of the pamphlets. Maybe the commissioner is partly responsible for your friend's ignorance of the law. He knew what his responsibility was under the law.

You're wrong. If that were true your neighbor could restrict your hunting rights on your property. No such law exists.
I'm against hunting over bait, but if the details of this case are true, there's no way to prove intent. I bet the case gets tossed.

Just messing with you.