3 Charged In Union County Elk Poaching

[Koda]

according to ODFW over 231 elk and 492 deer were illegally killed in 2015, those are only the ones they caught....
Oregon's poaching problem stretches far and wide

 

[mjbskwim]

If I were to run across a man and his kid trying to load up a deer in the back of a beat up old truck that's barely hay wired together I'm probably going to stop and lend a hand before the cops get there, but come around that same curve and find a couple of guys in a 2016 4x4 doing the same thing
And I'm probably going to have a different additude.

Double standard? Yep, but some things are self evident.

Not a double standard in my eyes

 

[mjbskwim]

according to ODFW over 231 elk and 492 deer were illegally killed in 2015, those are only the ones they caught....
Oregon's poaching problem stretches far and wide

Doesn't make it any better but on the three major roads out of THIS town ,I would bet there is half that much in road kill.
Easily

 

[The Heretic]

What is your recommendation for stopping these pukes from poaching. If you have a better solution lets hear it.

IIRC, one of the lawful remedies is to take anything involved in the crime, from guns to trucks, etc. - maybe take any real estate where they took parts of the game animal?

The justice system does this to drug traffickers, without even a trial - it is called "civil forfeiture" - the property is charged with the crime, not the person. Since property has no rights it can be presumed "guilty" (i.e., illegal proceeds of a crime) and taken without an arrest or trial and the person who has had the property taken has to prove that the property is "innocent".

I am usually against "Civil forfeiture" as it is abused a lot by LEOs, but in this case it seems justified.

 

[Koda]

IIRC, one of the lawful remedies is to take anything involved in the crime, from guns to trucks, etc. - maybe take any real estate where they took parts of the game animal?

The justice system does this to drug traffickers, without even a trial - it is called "civil forfeiture" - the property is charged with the crime, not the person. Since property has no rights it can be presumed "guilty" (i.e., illegal proceeds of a crime) and taken without an arrest or trial and the person who has had the property taken has to prove that the property is "innocent".

I am usually against "Civil forfeiture" as it is abused a lot by LEOs, but in this case it seems justified.

I thought they already did that in Oregon?

 

[JRuby]

what ever they are doing in Oregon it isnt working but then I would argue that the ODFW isnt working either.

 

[BaggerRyder]

The fines and sentences are set by the courts, and follow minimum's and maximum's according to the category the crime falls into. Poaching falls into the category of a class A misdemeanor, which probably carries a max fine of $6k and up to a yr in jail. So the courts need to change the category in order for it to hurt poachers more. They also need to make stick all the secondary charges that usually get added but then dropped during plea agreements.
These include waste of a game animal, hunting out of season, taking a game animal with aide of a motor vehicle, etc. Once all those start sticking and the person is charged with all of them then they get charged more $$ and more community service, restitution to ODFW, etc.
I don't think ODFW has any say in how the crime is categorized, although they may, but they definitely could ensure that every case is charged with the maximum penalty under Oregon law.
And I do believe that there are civil forfeiture rules in place for crimes against wildlife.

 

[The Heretic]

I thought they already did that in Oregon?

Guns and/or vehicles, but probably not real estate unless it was a criminal enterprise (e.g., harvesting bears for gall bladders and selling/etc. out of the house).

Generally legislatures and courts are reluctant to take people's homes away from them - and rightfully so I think - but they are not so reluctant when it comes to drugs. They have even taken houses from owners when the renters have used them for meth labs/etc. - which I think is totally unfair.

 

[Koda]

Guns and/or vehicles, but probably not real estate unless it was a criminal enterprise (e.g., harvesting bears for gall bladders and selling/etc. out of the house).

Generally legislatures and courts are reluctant to take people's homes away from them - and rightfully so I think - but they are not so reluctant when it comes to drugs. They have even taken houses from owners when the renters have used them for meth labs/etc. - which I think is totally unfair.

interesting. If most of the incidents happen on public lands then they might not be able to take the suspects land property. Its not a bad idea though, these kind of poachers deserve it. They would have to add poaching to the law they use to take drug offenders property. Some politician would probably screw that up though..