Ted does it again!

[Paula]

speaking of beer, have any of you heard of these?

http://butternutsstore.myshopify.com/

[WNYBuckHunter]

Here you go . . . Cheers!

Gracias senor!

[WNYBuckHunter]

I think my popcorn needs some theme music....

[erussell]

Stupid law. There would be alot of people on here that had tickets coming to them if that was a law in NY.

[adkbuck]

Like him or not, Uncle Ted is an outspoken defender of the basic American right to own a firearm and to hunt and fish. He is unabashedly anti-Obama, anti-socialist-power-hungry government. He was arrested not by Alaskan Fish and Game but by Federal Agents from the US Department of Justice (i.e. Holder and Obama's crew). The illegal and unjust "law" that "he violated" was that "you must stop hunting if you graze an animal with a non-lethal hit" is an affront to any hunter and wreaks of a bureaucratic anti-hunter mentality that is threat to us all. Obviously Obama's minions are out to get him silenced. No matter Ted's past (I served during Vietnam and yes I don't agree with everything Ted says) you have the give the man credit for having the courage to speak against our current powerful and unaccountable leftist government who bit by bit are eroding our constitutional rights as a cancer.

[erussell]

_{Hear, Hear !!!}

Edited May 3, 2012 by erussell

[bubba]

can we see the album cover one more time please? Just in case anyone missed it the first two times.

[Sogaard]

Maybe that law is in place because they don't want people taking low percentage shots leading to lost animals. In other words, shoot once, and shoot well.

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse in this country. The burden is on you to do the research. If you think a specific law is stupid, don't hunt in the area it pertains to. Granted, I wish many of this seemingly trivial laws didn't exist, but elected, state and local governments put them in place, not the Feds.

[HectorBuckBuster]

That is one stupid law, so by their law that bear is Ted's. So what happens if someone else shoots it who's bear is it? By their law it is Teds.

[ants]

DAMN ROCK & ROLL MUSIC!!!!!!

[Doc]

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse in this country. The burden is on you to do the research.

Yes, that little saying about "ignorance of the law" is an often quoted saying, and is most often dragged out by someone (like everyone else) who unwittingly breaks laws just about every day. I have reviewed some of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law which is contained in two volumes with a total stack height of over 3-1/2" of small print and complex legalese which will quickly throw you into a coma-like stupor and that simply resembles a bunch of double-talk. I have seen laws where if you ask 3 different law enforcement people the same question you will get 3 different interpretations. We have discussed laws on this site and have come away with no actual resolution of the meanings of those laws. Some of the laws defy interpretations.

So saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse simply is another way of saying that any time that some L.E.O. decides he wants to write you up, it is very likely that he will be able find some obscure law and do so even if you have made a concerted effort to educate yourself on the entire content of the law. It's one of those things that sounds so wise and thoughtful when you say it, but which also like many of the laws themselves, has no basis in actual reality.

Oh, and by the way I have only been talking about NYS laws. So imagine the research involved when you visit 3 or 4 different states in the same year. You had better have a whole lot of time on your hands or reconcile yourself to the fact that you will be ignorant of some local laws and you very well might get arrested for those.

I hear that oft quoted little phrase about ignorance of the law, and acknowledge that it applies. However I also disregard it as a meaningless phrase that is so far out of touch with reality that it has no real practical meaning.

[SteveB]

Turns out it is not some obscure, minor reg buried deep in an inches thick dusty old book.

And the only conspiracy is Ted's to get ratings with other entertainers like Beck.

From another site - note the highlighted parts and where it came from.

Commentary: A government conspiracy against Ted Nugent? Hardly

Julia O'Malley

The Anchorage Daily News

Julia O'Malley Anchorage Daily News

Updated: 2012-05-02T10:46:15Z

More News

The lengths to which some people will go to avoid taking personal responsibility surprises me. Take, for example, steward of Alaska's great outdoors, the rocker/gun rights activist/reality star Ted Nugent.

Last week, he struck a humble tone before a federal judge as he pleaded guilty to illegally shooting and transporting a black bear in Southeast Alaska three years ago.

He said he'd just been ignorant about a game law in the area. He'd been with his son on Sukkwan Island hunting baited bears. He shot an arrow at a bear and wounded it, but it scampered off. The extent of its injuries is unclear. Nugent's attorney, Wayne Anthony Ross, said it bled some. Nobody knows if it died.

If a hunter wounds a bear where Nugent was hunting--a rugged, mountainous region of Southeast-- the rule is that you don't get to shoot another one. You can find this rule highlighted in yellow at the bottom of page 25 of the hunting regulation book. You can also find it online. But Nugent, by his own admission, never saw this rule. Which is why he said he shot a second bear. And then shared the whole experience with the audience of his Outdoor Channel show, "Spirit of the Wild."

In court he said he'd made a mistake. It was his job to know the law, respect the law and conduct himself the way his father raised him to. He would "never knowingly break any game laws," he said.

"I'm afraid I was blindsided by this," he told the judge. "I sincerely apologize for it.

The Nuge could have left it at that. But this past week he put out a statement blasting "idiotic laws," and called Glenn Beck’s national radio/television program , where he struck a tone far different than he did in the courtroom.

Sure, he messed up in Alaska, he admitted to Beck's sympathetic ear. But the law was "goofy." The criminal charges didn't come because he broke the law and broadcast it to tens of thousands of people, they came because he was the target of a government conspiracy. The president was out to get him.

"They gave me the ultimatum the day after I endorsed Mitt Romney," he told Beck.

A few pieces of background to note: This is Nugent's second hunting violation. The other one, for using a chemical scent to attract a deer, occurred in California in 2009. Nugent also got attention recently from the Secret Service after telling an NRA crowd, "We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November," adding, "If Barack Obama becomes the next president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

I don't know how you see all that, but Nugent saw the hunting violations and his conversation with the Secret Service as a message from the U.S. government. The State of Alaska, Nugent told Beck, didn't want to charge him with the game violation but the feds did. Wasn't that suspicious? Especially because nobody had been charged under the law before. (Had anyone broadcast themselves breaking the law before? That point didn't come up.)

The judge in his case told him he wasn't familiar with the law, Nugent said.

"We can't find anybody who ever heard of this new unprecedented law!"

Nugent gave examples of other game regulations he found "indescribably bizarre and illogical." Beck did his part, driving the conspiracy train of thought so they could both jump aboard.

This was just like communists, to target the rebels, he went on. Nugent was targeted and put through the wringer, Beck said, like so many of Beck's friends. That was the plot, to go after people in red states. To bully them! Interrogate them! Seize and destroy their propert

Oh, the drama! Anyway, you get the picture.

After watching the clip of Beck's show, I called the federal prosecutor in the case, Jack Schmidt, to ask if he was part of an anti-Nugent federal conspiracy. The idea cracked him up.

"For him to say that it has anything to do with politics is ridiculous," he said.

Somebody who knew the hunting regs watched Nugent's show and alerted the authorities, he said. They investigated. The complaint had merit so they brought the charge.

"The fact his violation occurred on TV, that definitely led to this investigation," Schmidt said.

Nugent was charged in federal court because the federal government did the investigation and the violation occurred on federal land, he said.

"As Nugent says there is no bag limit on happiness, but, obviously, there is a bag limit on bears in Alaska," he said.

I asked Neil Barten, Fish and Game's wildlife management coordinator in Southeast, if it was true that nobody knows about the regulation that Nugent violated.

"All of our hunting guides are very well aware of it because they wanted it in the first place," Barten said.

The regulation came about in 2004 at the request of guides, Barten said. A bear can be seriously wounded without bleeding too much. For that reason, and because of the terrain, it can be hard to track. Guides felt it wasn't ethical to wound one bear without knowing whether it had been killed and then to shoot and kill a second one, he said. Every year, Fish and Game gets reports from hunters who say they have wounded a bear. Apparently, the rule isn't as obscure as Nugent would have you believe.

Think what you want about presidential politics, gun rights and hunting regulations. All of that is beside the point. In this case, we're just dealing with a famous symbol of manliness, with his sleeveless camo and sniper rifles, who can't be man enough to say he's sorry when he's wrong and move on.

[erussell]

Was he hunting with a guide?

[SteveB]

If a hunter wounds a bear where Nugent was hunting--a rugged, mountainous region of Southeast-- the rule is that you don't get to shoot another one. You can find this rule highlighted in yellow at the bottom of page 25 of the hunting regulation book. You can also find it online and the regulation came about in 2004.

Not new - not unknown - not obscure - and not a conspiracy persecution of poor Ted.

Edited May 4, 2012 by SteveB

[fasteddie]

Uhhhhhh , SteveB , I take it you don't like Ted !

[bubba]

lol

[SteveB]

Don't see why you would think that

Edited May 4, 2012 by SteveB

[Paula]

seems like if he knew the law he would not have advertised his illegal hunt on a show

[Doc]

seems like if he knew the law he would not have advertised his illegal hunt on a show

That is the odd thing about this whole fiasco. Say what you want about the guy, you have to admit that he is not dumb. I find it hard to believe that he would knowingly air a program that depicts an illegal act. I really do believe that he had no idea that he had broken the law.

In terms of the description of the law being obvious and clearly posted on the regulations book, I would have to see the example before I put a whole lot of credibility in the word of any newspaper reporter. Sorry, but I do have a bit of a general bias against the media when it comes to gun or hunting issues. Yeah, I know ..... it has to be true because it was in the newspaper ..... right? Well, maybe it is, but I would rather read that information from a more reliable source before I get too excited about it.

[sits in trees]

can we see the album cover one more time please? Just in case anyone missed it the first two times.

[sits in trees]

Ted stories are getting old. He's just a coward plain n simple. Doged the draft and then sounded off ten years after the fact that if he were in Vietnam how he would have killed each and every one of them, or something to that affect..Coward watching other young men sent off to war whilst he kept his ass safe at home.

[sits in trees]

American Hero

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/08/26/proof_ted_nugent_is_a_draft_dodger_will_hannity_keep_defending_him.php

[SteveB]

In terms of the description of the law being obvious and clearly posted on the regulations book, I would have to see the example before I put a whole lot of credibility in the word of any newspaper reporter. Sorry, but I do have a bit of a general bias against the media when it comes to gun or hunting issues. Yeah, I know ..... it has to be true because it was in the newspaper ..... right? Well, maybe it is, but I would rather read that information from a more reliable source before I get too excited about it.

Would this be reliable enough"

http://www.adfg.alas...s/pdfs/bear.pdf

Bottom of page 25 highlighted.

3 pages of bear regulations - should be a daunting task for someone going to hunt there to wade thru them.

The issue isn't that he knowingly violated the regs and callously aired the breaking of them.

The issue is that the self appointed spokesperson for all hunters (according to him and many others) who espouses ethical, responsible hunting and stewardship of the land, has again not walked the talk. And he has a history, whether it is the military, family values or hunting, going back to his youth of "do what I say and not as I do.

I would think we all would agree that elected officials can be held accountable for their actions while representing us. Why is it there are those who feel that a self appointed spokesperson can not be held to similar standards? I have the right to not want to be told Ted speaks for me and that I should not only just accept it, but be grateful. It's not hate or dislike for the man - just lack of respect and I simply want distance from him and most of his actions.

[Doc]

Would this be reliable enough"

http://www.adfg.alas...s/pdfs/bear.pdf

Yup! and that sure does mean a whole lot than some hack-job by a news reporter.

Relative to who Nugent speaks for, or doesn't, I will say that I really don't go out of my way to act like a loyal fan ...... because I'm not. However, I will also say that I don't go out of my way to throw him under the bus either. I find no benefit to hunters to do that. As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to devote that much of their life and energies toward speaking up for hunters and gun owners, (When almost all hunters won't even bother to pick up a pen and write their opinions or hunting concerns to legislators), is probably not someone that I feel the need to tear down. I guess I just don't get the motivations for some of this spite that we seem to enjoy heaping on people that do speak up for us.

I see the American hunter as being the most self-destructive set of individuals in society as they seem to get some perverse joy out of destroying those individuals and organizations that volunteer and serve as advocates. Really, I just don't get it. Maybe I don't necessarily like his abrasive style of speaking. Maybe I don't like his personality. Maybe he does make some mistakes along the way (don't we all). Maybe I don't like his music ....lol, but I have yet to hear much of what he says that I disagree with. I don't have to like the guy, or like much about him in order to not go out of my way to try to get people to stop listening to his positive views toward hunters and hunting. I don't see that sort of thing as being beneficial to me as a hunter and gun owner. Why would it be?

Also, I would say that as long as we demand absolute perfection from our advocates, we needn't wonder why we have so few people saying anything positive about hunting and gun ownership. We do it to ourselves everytime.

[fasteddie]

I will give you a Two Thumbs up on that Doc !