Hunter Harassment

[Chew]

Froggy decided to post the video and needed help...

[rolylane6]

That was actually the 3rd time I had posted actual verbiage, but keep on keeping on Homeslice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And your verbiage has never supported your argument. It has supported mine tho, so thanks...homeslice!

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

[lovetohunt]

Nice video Chew

[boy wonder]

If that's Froggy in the canoe, how does he have time to hunt?? He must spend all this time with the ladies..................

[GarGuy]

I remember when the wording was changed saying it was illegal to bait with the intent of someone else shooting over it. The way it was explained to me was that a group of coastal marsh guides were building blinds on all the hot potholes and then fiercely defending the spot from the general public. The way I heard it, some guys went out the night before season and corned the crap out of the holes. First light called operation game thief and reported folks hunting over bait. If i remember right, some tbhers had a little involvment.

[Texas Grown]

Froggy decided to post the video and needed help...

His paddling skills are so graceful and elegant.

[Greenheadless]

Froggy decided to post the video and needed help...

Wow, his neighbor has some definite skills. He should be thank his stars this is his neighbor.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ofq_nl366VM&feature=share

The gloriousness of the video is the song he freestyle to, the intermittent golf claps, and most of all the comment section.

[SabineHunter]

Quack, you are right but roly is wrong and will never admit it. GW will nail the jerk for putting out bait.

[rolylane6]

Quack, you are right but roly is wrong and will never admit it. GW will nail the jerk for putting out bait.

You still haven't shown any evidence that supports your position but you keep sticking to your guns. They say when someone is proven wrong they either admit they're wrong or commit to being wrong. I guess we know which group you're in!
Hint: it ain't the first group.

And for the record, the GW can definitely fine him for it and I hope he does. But that doesn't mean he has to or that the law says he's guilty without a hunter ever being present.
Oh and my neighbor has a corvette too. And it's red. So tread lightly....[emoji16]

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

[Froggy]

Quack, you are right but roly is wrong and will never admit it. GW will nail the jerk for putting out bait.

You still haven't shown any evidence that supports your position but you keep sticking to your guns. They say when someone is proven wrong they either admit they're wrong or commit to being wrong. I guess we know which group you're in!
Hint: it ain't the first group.

And for the record, the GW can definitely fine him for it and I hope he does. But that doesn't mean he has to or that the law says he's guilty without a hunter ever being present.
Oh and my neighbor has a corvette too. And it's red. So tread lightly....[emoji16]

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

You two just hush for now. I'll let y'all know how in turns out. It's still two months until duck season.

[Hoggslayer]

Quack, you are right but roly is wrong and will never admit it. GW will nail the jerk for putting out bait.

With any violation they, have to prove intent. If he was just feeding wildlife on his property, then that would be pretty hard to prove the intent of purposely baiting to get the hunter in trouble. The law say "for the purpose of" that means they have to prove that purpose. I'm on the side of the hunter, but I'll bet the guy gets a slap on the wrist again.

[rolylane6]

You two just hush for now. I'll let y'all know how in turns out. It's still two months until duck season.

This hasn't even been about how your case turns out. It's about a person stating their interpretation of a law as if it were fact, when in fact, its only their interpretation. The law he's provided does not say what he states it says and I won't let someone make false statements on a public forum and just turn my head. I was taught to hold folks accountable.
I believe in your case there's good evidence to support you are in the right and the other landowner is in the wrong and for the most part we both agree on that. But it's only our interpretation of the circumstances around the law. A GW and/or a judge will get the final interpretation and say. Good luck Froggy. I'm rootin' for ya!

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

[hpdrifter]

With any violation they, have to prove intent. If he was just feeding wildlife on his property, then that would be pretty hard to prove the intent of purposely baiting to get the hunter in trouble. The law say "for the purpose of" that means they have to prove that purpose. I'm on the side of the hunter, but I'll bet the guy gets a slap on the wrist again.

Probably right. It sure looks like hunter harassment this time around also.
What was he feeding? Fish food, dog food or corn?
If it was known that ducks ate it and not so much fish.....well

[Hoggslayer]

Wrong.

Directly or indirectly placing, exposing, depositing, distributing or scattering of salt, grain, or other feed that could serve as a lure or attraction for migratory game birds to, on or over areas where hunters are attempting to take them is prohibited by federal law.

It doesn't say which hunters doesn't have to be the jerk. I believe the GW could cite the jerk on opening day of duck season for putting the feed there, with or without hunters nearby.

Probably right. It sure looks like hunter harassment this time around also.
What was he feeding? Fish food, dog food or corn?
If it was known that ducks ate it and not so much fish.....well

See SabineHunter, That isn't so hard.

[Box-R]

Seems like this problem has gone on long enough. Time to go nuclear...