Serial poacher sentenced

Jake Watrous said:
I’m curious as to how a lifetime ban on buying a license deters a poacher.
Click to expand...
Deterrent to maybe future poachers. Clear line in the sand.

If its only a couple years suspended, then its easier to poach, and on the off chance you get caught you only wait a few years to get back to legit status. Thats a big difference than a lifetime ban.
 
We all know poachers will likely repeat...

How about a progressive sentence?

First repeat is 100k. Second repeat is 250k. Third repeat is 500k. And so on...

Mandatory time in jail too. 100 days, 250 days, 500 days, and so on...

If they can not pay the fine, jail time extended until.they pay...
 
headduck said:
Just saw that a grays harbor jerk got 29 months and 4k fine for 2 out of season elk... Seems long on time and short on fine...

But 29 months means something and might make a somebody think twice.
Click to expand...
29 months in the slammer...and 24 months of no hunting privileges. Concurrently? :unsure:
 
RCF said:
We all know poachers will likely repeat...

How about a progressive sentence?

First repeat is 100k. Second repeat is 250k. Third repeat is 500k. And so on...

Mandatory time in jail too. 100 days, 250 days, 500 days, and so on...
Click to expand...

headduck said:
Just saw that a grays harbor jerk got 29 months and 4k fine for 2 out of season elk... Seems long on time and short on fine...

But 29 months means something and might make a somebody think twice.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree with "long on time" - good behavior and paroled in? The fine wasn't enough and like several members have suggested, confiscate his vehicle, rifles and anything else used in the crime. Not being able to buy a hunting license? BFD, like he cares?
 
They take our boats... Should take their rigs... 29 mos seems long to me...but I'm not hard core.

I was mainly comparing the 2 folks... First guy really got off.
 
headduck said:
Not a deterrent... Guess they should just sell licenses... Such a joke.
Click to expand...

I agree not a deterrent, but people are going to commit the crimes they are going to commit punishment is not a deterrent nor should they be used as such. They are penalties nothing more nothing less.

Example... I drive i-84 from Biggs to Hood river 4 days a week. I set my cruise control at speed limit plus 3. I never pass any cars, I mean never. Everyone else is going speed limit plus 20 and I mean everyone else.
We every single one of us deserves multiple speeding tickets. Though not as serious of a crime we are all just as guilty. Now if speeding tickets quadrupled it would have no affect on how people drive all you can do is punish because the threat of punishment doesn't mean a thing to us..
 
Rob Allen said:
I agree not a deterrent, but people are going to commit the crimes they are going to commit punishment is not a deterrent nor should they be used as such. They are penalties nothing more nothing less.

Example... I drive i-84 from Biggs to Hood river 4 days a week. I set my cruise control at speed limit plus 3. I never pass any cars, I mean never. Everyone else is going speed limit plus 20 and I mean everyone else.
We every single one of us deserves multiple speeding tickets. Though not as serious of a crime we are all just as guilty. Now if speeding tickets quadrupled it would have no affect on how people drive all you can do is punish because the threat of punishment doesn't mean a thing to us..
Click to expand...
Threat of punishment means something to me. I just don't think I'm going to be punished for matching the speed of the cars around me. If I see 5-0 in a crossover, I slow down, because the threat is real then.
 
Rob Allen said:
I agree not a deterrent, but people are going to commit the crimes they are going to commit punishment is not a deterrent nor should they be used as such. They are penalties nothing more nothing less.

Example... I drive i-84 from Biggs to Hood river 4 days a week. I set my cruise control at speed limit plus 3. I never pass any cars, I mean never. Everyone else is going speed limit plus 20 and I mean everyone else.
We every single one of us deserves multiple speeding tickets. Though not as serious of a crime we are all just as guilty. Now if speeding tickets quadrupled it would have no affect on how people drive all you can do is punish because the threat of punishment doesn't mean a thing to us..
Click to expand...
You are very right with regards to harsher penalties not being a deterrant. It's been shown over and over. Harsh penalties do not have the effect of deterring people from comitting a crime.
The fear of being caught is a deterrant and a damned good one. This is especially true of crimes commited by people who aren't addicts.
Harsh penalties make people feel good but there is a diminishing return on the public money used to encarcerate people that starts shortly after the jail time starts.
I very much favor the idea that this fella should have to pay for the law enforcement costs and prosecution/ judicial costs associated with his crime. It seems to me this would serve to implement some justice into the penalty. If we think of jail time as the detterant portion of the sentence, it does not take a bunch of time to max out it's effect.
 
Rob Allen said:
Example... I drive i-84 from Biggs to Hood river 4 days a week. I set my cruise control at speed limit plus 3. I never pass any cars, I mean never. Everyone else is going speed limit plus 20 and I mean everyone else.
Click to expand...
Everyone isn't doing 90 between Biggs and The Dalles. If I drive 80 in that stretch, I pass 10 cars for every one passing me.
 
Last edited:
Snopro said:
Everyone isn't doing 90 between Biggs and The Dalles. If I drive 80 in that stretch, I pass 10 cars for every one passing me.
Click to expand...
Ok their doing 85 then. We'll split the difference. But that wasn't my main point.
 
charles sullivan said:
You are very right with regards to harsher penalties not being a deterrant. It's been shown over and over. Harsh penalties do not have the effect of deterring people from comitting a crime.
The fear of being caught is a deterrant and a damned good one. This is especially true of crimes commited by people who aren't addicts.
Harsh penalties make people feel good but there is a diminishing return on the public money used to encarcerate people that starts shortly after the jail time starts.
I very much favor the idea that this fella should have to pay for the law enforcement costs and prosecution/ judicial costs associated with his crime. It seems to me this would serve to implement some justice into the penalty. If we think of jail time as the detterant portion of the sentence, it does not take a bunch of time to max out it's effect.
Click to expand...
And of course increasing the number of wardens out there to begin with. It's a crime in itself that, as an example, each river doesn't have It's own warden.
 
Poachers bug me to no end and I would like to see consequences that would actually deter their behavior. I can't help but thinking about consequences on a much larger scale for major Corporations that are doing massive harm to fish habitat and fish environs!
 
Last edited:
Rob Allen said:
And of course increasing the number of wardens out there to begin with. It's a crime in itself that, as an example, each river doesn't have It's own warden.
Click to expand...
I would say each watershed maybe. I only imagine a warden camped out on say the Skykomish might be overkill. But then, the Columbia surely would need more. As long as it’s efficiently managed. An academic thought only though.
 
Northern said:
The fines should at minimum cover all investigative and legal costs, including staff salaries
Click to expand...
It costs zero to suspend this guy's right to own firearms for 5 years. You forfeit those rights for far less heinous crimes not involving their use. Hell I have buddies that were hit with that for growing weed and not even selling it before things were more legal. Either way we can be certain it cost way more to investigate than it is worth on paper. I'm glad they got him but I think more hours, more money, some time incarcerated, and a forfeit of gun ownership for a few years is more fitting. He's demonstrated a long record he can't be trusted with such implements.
 
Yard Sale said:
Deterrent to maybe future poachers. Clear line in the sand.

If its only a couple years suspended, then its easier to poach, and on the off chance you get caught you only wait a few years to get back to legit status. Thats a big difference than a lifetime ban.
Click to expand...
Last I checked poachers didn't really buy licences.
 
I wonder if something like this was his defense....

1721238349737.png
 
Dustin Chromers said:
It costs zero to suspend this guy's right to own firearms for 5 years. You forfeit those rights for far less heinous crimes not involving their use. Hell I have buddies that were hit with that for growing weed and not even selling it before things were more legal. Either way we can be certain it cost way more to investigate than it is worth on paper. I'm glad they got him but I think more hours, more money, some time incarcerated, and a forfeit of gun ownership for a few years is more fitting. He's demonstrated a long record he can't be trusted with such implements.
Click to expand...
I thoroughly agree. If a gun was used, he should forfeit that right. Excellent point.

I think that the fines are often lower than we think that they should be because large fines often cost the criminal justice system more than they are worth. They can also can become impediments to convicts becoming productive members of society since low wage earners often can't pay them which keeps them in the crimnal justice system. No one is better off in the criminal justice system. As much as I am skeptical of work crews, there seems to be a need for humans to help do enhancement/ mitigation work. I see no reason why he could not work off some or all of the bill. Losing your weekends for stealing from you and me seems just to me.
 
charles sullivan said:
I thoroughly agree. If a gun was used, he should forfeit that right. Excellent point.

I think that the fines are often lower than we think that they should be because large fines often cost the criminal justice system more than they are worth. They can also can become impediments to convicts becoming productive members of society since low wage earners often can't pay them which keeps them in the crimnal justice system. No one is better off in the criminal justice system. As much as I am skeptical of work crews, there seems to be a need for humans to help do enhancement/ mitigation work. I see no reason why he could not work off some or all of the bill. Losing your weekends for stealing from you and me seems just to me.
Click to expand...

If it's expensive to prosecute we should go cheap on the penalty? It's free to seize a right and said firearms and equipment used in the crime. They can be auctioned off to pick up the slack of a loser slacker if they can't come up with it. Crime should hurt when it comes time to do the time or pay. The fact it doesn't is why it's rising at the moment and criminals are bold. If people want to hire criminals and cons to work and represent their business that's their business. Those that whine about how tough criminals have it getting a break in the workplace should start a business of their own and hire them. I would say being a criminal will negatively hurt your job prospects as well as pay, and it should. I personally find it pretty easy not to poach and steal. I mean it's so easy I don't even think about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top