NC man banned from hunting worldwide in plea deal

mr. sin

Registered User
Mar 30, 2005
27,229
14,031
643
RALEIGH, NC
#1
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?s...647&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


RALEIGH -- A North Carolina man who bagged a deer and a bobcat in Kentucky without getting the proper permits has found himself banned from hunting anywhere in the world for two years.

Rodney Poteat of was sentenced in federal court in Kentucky last week after pleading guilty to charges of killing the deer and bobcat and transporting them to his home in Salisbury, N.C., in the western part of the state. He didn't get a permit required of non-residents or report the kills.

The plea deal cost him $5,350 and two years' probation, during which "the defendant shall be prohibited from hunting or accompanying anyone hunting anywhere in the world," reads the judge's order, which was first reported by The Salisbury Post.
 

Your_Moms_Box

Free Shit / Socialism 2016
Dec 20, 2004
5,755
468
628
Dover, Delaware
#3
I could see if was either the fine or the probation on their own, but both for poaching seems silly.

Are they even able to enforce it in another state?

Sent from my rooted BAMF'd Thunderbolt using magic.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,774
18,522
513
Kingdom of Charis
#4
Somehow I don't think you need a hunting permit in the forests of, say, Romania.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,475
27,313
898
Seattle
#6
Holy shit. Guvmint gots ta get theirs
For once, I agree with the government. Tags are not just about revenue. They are to stop over hunting and hunting out of season.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#7
For once, I agree with the government. Tags are not just about revenue. They are to stop over hunting and hunting out of season.
And it would make perfect sense to ban people who refuse to comply with the rules from hunting in the US, where the federal government is tasked to preserve wildlife.

But it doesn't make sense to ban them from hunting worldwide. Protecting wildlife abroad is outside the mandate of the US gov, and it stinks of environmentalist activism, not the desire to uphold hunting rules in the US.
 
Dec 8, 2004
48,634
20,943
693
Maine
#8
For once, I agree with the government. Tags are not just about revenue. They are to stop over hunting and hunting out of season.
And some of the money goes back into things like habitat development/management etc...
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,475
27,313
898
Seattle
#9
But it doesn't make sense to ban them from hunting worldwide. Protecting wildlife abroad is outside the mandate of the US gov, and it stinks of environmentalist activism, not the desire to uphold hunting rules in the US.
That's like saying if a pedo goes over to Asia and diddles a kid we can't arrest them when they come back.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,774
18,522
513
Kingdom of Charis
#10
That's like saying if a pedo goes over to Asia and diddles a kid we can't arrest them when they come back.
Not if the pedo does it somewhere where it's legal.


- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Probably while shitting.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#11
That's like saying if a pedo goes over to Asia and diddles a kid we can't arrest them when they come back.
Child molestation is a crime, no matter where the victim is. It is the US government's job to hold everyone within its jurisdiction responsible for any and all crimes they commit, no matter where they occur.

There is nothing inherently criminal about shooting a bobcat. It is an administrative infraction, and the hunting regulations it violates only apply to US territories. The government's only job is to prevent me from breaking them in the US. They should not have the power to tell me how to hunt in countries they are not tasked to regulate hunting in.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#12
Not if the pedo does it somewhere where it's legal.
I don't agree with that. Raping children is a crime no matter what local laws have to say, and we should punish the scumbags who do it on principle, the second we can get our hands on them.

Shooting bobcats isn't an inherent crime. We have no business punishing people who do it, as if they've actually committed a criminal act. The only business the US government has getting involved with hunting is to regulate it within US territory. Their only power should be to fine offenders and exclude them from hunting on US territory, not handing out criminal justice over a dead bobcat.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,347
21,959
398
Northern California
#14
The federal government does not have the power to enforce this. It was a plea deal, so it was kinda along the lines of "and you promise to not hunt anywhere in the world for two years"... type of thing. He will face no repercussions if he legally hunted in Africa and didn't bring anything back, unless there's some type of perjury you commit for breaking your word in court (no idea).

I'm a hunter (deer season opens tomorrow here) and I absolutely agree with poaching laws. Managing game levels is extremely important to the health of ecosystems, and most hunters agree with me. However, some of the punishments for first-time offenses are pretty insane. Here in California if you're caught poaching you can have your firearm(s) and any vehicle you used while poaching seized (truck, ATV, etc), on top of possible jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and suspension of hunting rights.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#15
The federal government does not have the power to enforce this. It was a plea deal, so it was kinda along the lines of "and you promise to not hunt anywhere in the world for two years"... type of thing. He will face no repercussions if he legally hunted in Africa and didn't bring anything back, unless there's some type of perjury you commit for breaking your word in court (no idea).
The plea deal is your legally binding agreement. He would absolutely face repercussions if he hunted overseas and was caught. Seems a bit of an overreach to add that penalty. Did the guy frequently travel outside the country for hunting?
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,543
13,852
608
Idaho
#16
Many states have agreements where if you get dinged in one state and lose your hunting privileges, the other states will honor that and you can't hunt there, either. A guy near here poached a huge buck and lost all hunting and fishing rights for years, and was not even able to be with anyone while they were hunting or fishing during that time, meaning he couldn't watch his grandkids fishing. He also had to spend the first few days of deer season in jail every year during that time. The judge must have had a sense of humor.

Maybe there are some international agreements between other countries and states here, I don't know.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,347
21,959
398
Northern California
#17
The plea deal is your legally binding agreement. He would absolutely face repercussions if he hunted overseas and was caught. Seems a bit of an overreach to add that penalty. Did the guy frequently travel outside the country for hunting?
There is another issue with this being a plea deal... that means it was an agreement between the defense and the judge/prosecution, meaning the defendant had to agree with it. If this was sentencing after a trial, I would absolutely see it as overreaching. However in this case he agreed to it willingly to stay out of jail.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,774
18,522
513
Kingdom of Charis
#19
I don't agree with that. Raping children is a crime no matter what local laws have to say, and we should punish the scumbags who do it on principle, the second we can get our hands on them.

Shooting bobcats isn't an inherent crime. We have no business punishing people who do it, as if they've actually committed a criminal act. The only business the US government has getting involved with hunting is to regulate it within US territory. Their only power should be to fine offenders and exclude them from hunting on US territory, not handing out criminal justice over a dead bobcat.
I didn't mean we shouldn't. I just wasn't sure if we even could. But like you said, hunting is not even inherently illegal, so I'm not really sure how they would even enforce such a decision.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,347
21,959
398
Northern California
#20
Hunting is non-manly.
Personally I see more value in getting up at 5 am and hiking 10 miles a day through the mountains five weekends a year in the hopes of seeing a nice buck over lining up like cattle at a trough to get your ground beef at the supermarket. Especially since I don't have complete faith that the food will always be available at a supermarket and feel it's a necessary skill to develop.

That said, I despise poachers and trophy hunters. If you kill an animal, you should use all the meat you can get from it. Also hunting is scientifically necessary. Humans have always been involved in the ecosystem, and to cease hunting would screw it up. Deer populations would rise, which puts an undue strain on the ecosystem, leading to disease and starvation in their population. Predator populations would rise in response, but since the deer populations would now be unhealthy, predators would kill of an excessive amount, thus leading to starvation and disease in their populations. Instead of managing the ecosystem through the scientific use of tags and limits, as well as continued human involvement, you now have one that is like a sea-saw, which is immensely detrimental and leads to a reduction in the quality of all involved populations.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#21
It is the US government's job to hold everyone within its jurisdiction responsible for any and all crimes they commit, no matter where they occur.
[video=youtube;dBQaLuqwtl8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBQaLuqwtl8[/video]

It's Federal court. They can enforce the stipulation anywhere in the U.S.

If he's on Supervised Release or probation, they can make that a condition of the release, in which case it can be enforced anywhere. That looks like what they did here. He's not "banned" worldwide. It wouldn't be a new charge, but they could violate him if he for example shot a monkey in Kenya. It may not sound like there's a difference, but there is.
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
18,721
5,598
768
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#22
It's not his fault. He just got confused. The deer kept insisting it was bobcat season, and the bobcat kept insisting it was deer season.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#24
He's not "banned" worldwide. It wouldn't be a new charge, but they could violate him if he for example shot a monkey in Kenya. It may not sound like there's a difference, but there is.
Why does EVERY thread in here have to devolve into bashing Obama and his family? :icon_cool

Lock this shit up. Its not getting any better than this post.
X2.