Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2009 13:16:39 GMT -5
First off, there's no mention of Ritz being directly involved in what went down there. He was not cited.
The manager was cited and bares 100% of the blame until there is proof that T/C or Ritz authorized the misdeeds.
This is purely a case of some very poor judgement on the part of the manager. He could have recieved legal permits to keep his deer in check and not been in violation. They also could have killed up to 3 does per hunter on the property during the season had they changed their internal policies and required their clients to take something other than a buck.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Apr 6, 2009 18:16:06 GMT -5
Outfitters are subject to the same game laws as everyone else....monitered by the state and federal governemnt with the overused and abused "Lacey Act" I cant sing, keep me out of the chorus... Free market system and the risk reward associated with it is what has made this country great and will continue to make this country great. Less government is a better goverment..... BINGO! If there hadn't been "money" in the fur trade... we'd be sitting in 13 colonies asking the Queen for permission to grow potatoes. If not for the "money" in hunting, Woody wouldn't have 20 sponsors plastered all over this page, and you wouldn't have hunting magazines or TV shows or expo's to tune into. The hypocracy is amazing. Some folks seem to believe there shouldn't be money involved in their hobbies... and complain when their chosen profession isn't profitable. When I read all this whining and crying about free-markets and capitolist ventures that occasionally abuse law and regulation, I wonder if these guys are Obama voters. Seriously, with that narrow self-centered mindset how can you be a level-headed republican? I don't know whom you're addressing here, but I've never advocated making outfitting or guiding illegal, but with the monetary stakes being as high as they are these days, I think these operations should be monitered much more closely than they are now. BTW, unrestrained fur trapping and trading came close to wiping out several species.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Apr 6, 2009 20:25:32 GMT -5
Look on the Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife web site for the press release linked to the article. Either I'm blind or an idiot, because I didn't see it.....
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Apr 6, 2009 20:25:37 GMT -5
"Monetary stakes as high as they are"
"these operations"
"Monitored more closely"
"unrestrained fur trapping..."
Sounds familiar.
Evil money, corrupt businesses, more regulation, closer oversight, and blood thirsty sportsmen.
Oh my.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2009 7:50:39 GMT -5
Look on the Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife web site for the press release linked to the article. Either I'm blind or an idiot, because I didn't see it..... fw.ky.gov/newsrelease.asp?nid=512
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 7, 2009 8:08:39 GMT -5
The best thing that can happen is to severely punish anyone breaking the law. There is no need to over regulate and punish the ones who do things the right way. We have a tendency in this country once someone breaks a law to say everyone in that same situation will break the law. Make the punishment worse and fewer people will commit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Apr 7, 2009 10:47:45 GMT -5
I agree, and I don't mean to overly bust anyone's azz over this terminology and wording.
I guess I just get tired of seeing these minor slants and leaning twist in conversations amongst sporstsmen. It's one thing to turn on the evening news and watch them throw anti-gun rhetoric, minority opression and big-business corruption at us with their liberal agendas.... but man it's frustrating to see guys picking up bits and pieces of that in their own stance on sportsman issues.
When Katie Couric tells us a gunman killed 3 policemen in Pittsburg and then cites that he was a McCain supporter who was afraid Obama would take away guns.... we know she's a liberal POS pushing their agenda. We call her out as such.
When Billy-Bob comes on here and complains that the "big man" is holding him down by leasing property in his area, and that anyone that can afford a hunting lease is LIKELY to break the law anyway... we gotta raise an eyebrow folks!! This sense of helplessness and entitlement shouldn't be popping up in discussions amongst god-fearing, gun owning, common sense MEN.
Not trying to get too personal here... just pointing out what I've noticed lately.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Apr 7, 2009 11:38:10 GMT -5
"Monetary stakes as high as they are" "these operations" "Monitored more closely" "unrestrained fur trapping..." Sounds familiar. Evil money, corrupt businesses, more regulation, closer oversight, and blood thirsty sportsmen. Oh my. I'm certainly not alone in my opinion and many in the hunting community for whom I have the utmost respect agree that the antler craze will likely lead to the end of the sport of deer hunting as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Apr 7, 2009 12:21:30 GMT -5
While I find the thought that deer hunting in general is doomed LAUGHABLE, I agree that you're not alone in your opinion. I'm sure Katie Couric is on your side as well.
I personally save my buck tag for a mature deer... but I don't promote trophy hunting to women, youth and others that are new to the sport. For every trophy buck I kill, I'll harvest a dozen does. It's give and take- and I agree that this horn craze can frustrate inexperienced hunters and deter new hunter outreach... it also drives jealousy and anger amongst our ranks. But, it is what it is. The human race has overcome bigger quarrels than the desire for antlers.
The end of, or collapse of, our hunting rights will sooner revolve around the constant bickering and infighting we see over all these minor variables. Leases, foodplots, crossbows, rifles, preserves, baiting, coonhounds, conibears and god forbid a YOUTH SEASON. All of these things.... will be the end of the sport.
Why? Because they're bad for the sport? Because they're bad for the resource? No- because the collective dumba$$es that WE ARE cannot approach them logically and realize that we're all in the same minority. We feel the need to cut throats and legislate and regulate and mandate over one another... to promote *OUR* version of hunting over another.
Only 6% of Americans hunt, and 50% of those seem hellbent on shutting down the other half in one way or another. Sometimes, even at the costs of siding with ANTI HUNTERS (another small faction of society) or even throwing propoganda at the 94% of Americans that decide our COLLECTIVE fate at the ballot box.
That, will be the end of hunting. Not the desire for more antler.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Apr 7, 2009 12:26:04 GMT -5
Unrestrained trapping wiped out the otter and beaver in several area's of the United States. Monitoring hunting ranches or farms would not effect the everyday hunter or even the hunter that pays for his kill. I see no reason why an outfitter should not have his books audited similar to a bank or loan establishment. After all places like game trails are big money. If Ritz who is listed as the sole proprietor (owner) supplied the funding and obtained funding for this operation he should not have left it totally in the hands of the manager. He should have monitored the business better. Yes the manager is to blame and should be treated as a criminal; as he is one.
Thompson Centers only reference is that Ritz was a CEO for them.
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Apr 7, 2009 13:35:31 GMT -5
Let's be realistic here, unrestricted trapping in a timeframe where fur was the centerpiece of all markets: is not what we're talking about. Trapping was a way of LIFE then, deer hunting is just a somewhat popular hobby in todays world. These outfitters are obligated by law to act just like everyone else... within seasons, within limits, and be financially transparent. VIOLATIONS are the exception, not the rule.
Outfitters and lease groups are LLC's and SCORPS and other business entities... their books are required to be transparent to the IRS. There aren't many folks making $1 that they aren't obligated to show the IRS somehow... so let's no pretend this is a big money-market loophole.
Poachers aren't representative of hunters.... child molesters aren't representative of priest... Game Trails isn't representative of outfitters. That jealousy, envy and anger we discussed earlier seems to broaden the brush folks paint with.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Apr 7, 2009 15:04:20 GMT -5
Point taken.
Angry, jealous and envious? No, quite the contrary. I feel sorry for those who no longer pursue wild animals for the love of the chase, but instead for the love of money or the need to satisy an ego. Hunting for those reasons puts the sport in a very bad light with the non-hunting public and that's where my concern lies in regards to incidents like the one at Game Trails.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Apr 7, 2009 15:14:46 GMT -5
Hux
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2009 15:51:15 GMT -5
Here's another article making the rounds, mostly the same info.
End Of The Game Trail?
Only weeks ago, Game Trails, a hunting facility in Northwestern Kentucky, was billing itself as the "proving grounds for the hunting and shooting industry" and notifying hunters they were taking advance reservations for the 2009 hunting season and were expecting their limited hunting opportunities to fill up quickly.
Today, it is history, following an 18-month long state and federal investigation that concluded with Game Trails and its site manager pleading guilty to "numerous misdemeanor violations of the Lacey Act of taking wildlife unlawfully, and for making false statements to Kentucky officers about the takings and interstate transportation of wildlife." Game Trails and site manager, William Dirk McTavish, Jr., 43, of Paducah, paid a total of $50,000 in fines.
Another former Game Trails employee, Robert Christopher Helms, 40, of Booneville, Indiana, still faces up to five years in federal prison after pleading guilty to a felony count of threatening a federal witness. His sentencing is scheduled for June 11.
In August 2007, Kentucky wildlife officials noticed "numerous inconsistencies" while comparing and analyzing 2006 Telecheck deer harvest data with data that Game Trails LLC had supplied to Quality Deer Management Association in Georgia.
After Kentucky wildlife biologist David Yancy raised those concerns with Kentucky conservation officers, they began a lengthy investigation that involved reconciling the Telechecked deer harvest reports of Game Trails clients with information subpoenaed from QDMA.
They didn't jibe.
In fact, the investigation turned up "numerous instances" of "Game Trails employees, their friends and family chronically taking over-limits of deer, outside hunting season parameters, supplying false information to Kentucky Fish and Wildlife and using social security numbers of Game Trails clients without their permission to Telecheck their deer harvests."
Kentucky DFW Lieutenant Greg Noel and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Special Agent John Barham discovered hundreds of deer jawbones and documentation tying them to Game Trails after traveling to Atlanta, and serving a federal search warrant at QDMA's headquarters.
By sending the jawbones to another state, Game Trails was guilty of transporting illegally taken deer out of state. That transport constituted the Lacey Act violations.
The 12,000-plus acre site, bordered by about 4½ miles of Ohio River, was owned by Kimball International and leased to Ritz and sharecroppers.
The previous owner had used local draw hunting to manage the deer herd, but that Game Trails eliminated that practice because it interfered with its filming and big buck hunting routines.
As a result, the herd grew quickly and Game Trails contacted QDMA to evaluate and make recommendations about improving the deer herd.
As part of the information process, Game Trails supplied QDMA with completed data sheets and jawbones of harvested deer.
A guilty plea for Lacey Act violations has apparently spelled the end of the trail for Game Trails - at least in Kentucky. That data, collected during Noel's and Barham's investigation, conflicted with Telecheck data. That discrepancy formed the backbone of what one observer called "an airtight government case" against Game Trails.
For the hunting industry, Game Trails case is more than another case of dubious business dealings. It's one many in the industry hoped would simply go away. That's because of the affiliations of Game Trails with many of the brand names in the outdoor
Game Trails' sole-proprietor owner is former Thompson/Center Arms owner Gregg Ritz. And Ritz' use of his many connections in the industry to promote Game Trails has many very nervous.
For years, Game Trails has been a go-to locale for television hunting programs. Thompson/Center, Realtree, Winchester, Hunter's Specialties, Nikon, Under Armour, Federal, Bad Boy Enterprises and others regularly used the property to host outdoor writers and film television shows to promote and test their products.
In fact, a brochure for Game Trails touts the success of the Game Trails property that was regularly documented on "Realtree's Monster Bucks, Bass Pro Outdoor World, Tales of the Hunt, Game Trails (hosted by Ritz), Petersen's Hunting" and various other television shows. Additionally, the brochure reads like a who's-who of writers who have hunted the property and praised the "unbelievable quality of the deer and turkey populations."
State and federal officials have not yet released the names of those hunters whose names and social security numbers were unknowingly used on false Telecheck reports. When that information is released, the sheer number of outdoor celebrities who have used the facility may mean their names were unknowingly -and innocently- tied to the Lacey violation.
Officials stress that Game Trails clients whose names were used in the Telecheck reports are not under suspicion of having done anything to violate any state or federal game laws. Neither has QDMA, billed as a "partner" in the management of the deer herd on the property been accused of any wrongdoing.
The acreage that made up Game Trails was leased land, owned by Kimball International which harvested oak, walnut and chestnut trees from the property. Yesterday, we were told that the lease was no longer in effect and the property was being "repurposed" by Kimball.
Investigating officer Noel says the property has been "vacated" and Game Trails is "moving its operations to Ohio."
The telephone numbers for Game Trails are no longer in service, and the website that formerly featured pictures of many of the best-known names in the hunting industry is "under construction".
We'll keep you posted.
--Jim Shepherd
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Apr 7, 2009 17:16:50 GMT -5
This isn't 1950. The world has changed, it's changing more every day. The right amount of money can buy you an Illinois Senate Seat, a foreign medical practice that saves your life, and the opportunity to harvest the most prized animals on the planet. Welcome to 21st century America.
Our free market and liberal use of "disposable income" is not only what fuels the economy... it makes the world go 'round quite frankly. The mere fact you can post on this forum: is in some way attributed to the fact that folks are spending money on big antlers. Every single hobby, without exception, has seen an influx in money and corporate influence in the last 50 years.
In 1950 the middle class family earned $22,000 annually: today that number has tripled to $76,000. 10 Million Americans take cruises each year… 13 million Americans own a boat. Why is it so surprising that the sport is leaning toward leases, trophy fees and folks searching for a bigger and better way to enjoy their version of the American Dream?
Instead of claiming the sky is falling, in Pelosi-Style, why not push for a healthy balance to offset the horn-hungry trend? Get more kids involved for the RIGHT reasons, open up more opportunity for sportsmen to enjoy the outdoors in one fashion or another, and quit all the bickering and infighting. Not speaking AT anyone, just trying to express my general discontent with this whole damn thing.
PS: Hang the poachers high, put a lock on the CEO’s social security number and make sure he punches a time clock for every penny he earns from here on out. Any fines he paid should go directly to sportsmen- because that’s the constituency he hurt the most with his actions.
|
|
|
Post by raporter on Apr 7, 2009 21:23:54 GMT -5
In 1950 the middle class family earned $22,000 annually.
I knew we were poor back then but I sure didn't realize just how poor we were. Think maybe there are some mixed up numbers here.
|
|
|
Post by old3arrows on Apr 7, 2009 22:53:32 GMT -5
A lot off of the original topic, but here is my two cents. Hux you will like this one as I know how you enjoy scouring the internet for interesting facts and figures! ;D That income for a 1950's family when chances are the wife stayed at home to raise the kids is way too high!!!!!!!!! I hired in to a utility company for a very good starting wage of $10.63/hour in 1991 which comes out to about $22,110.00/year before taxes. A more realistic income as quoted from Time Magazine as follows; The heyday of the U.S. middle class, and its high expectations, came in the 1950s and 1960s, when the median U.S. family income -- adjusted to today's price levels -- leaped from $14,832 in 1950 to $27,338 in 1970. I can also remember my dad worrying about retiring from GM when he got his 30 years in because he still had a few years left on his mortgage. Come to find out his monthly mortgage payment was $33.00/month!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Apr 8, 2009 0:19:13 GMT -5
You're right... I mis-spoke. The number is $29,000 annually... not $22,000 for a 1950 Middle Class Family. I am sure many Americans lived on less... I know my parents did, with a single income. Many Americans certainly live on less than 75,000 in todays world. Doesn't change the definition of "Middle Class". Please refer to the video posted below, where John Stossel has a guest named Aurthor Brooks which quotes the figures from 1950 & 2007 in his "Bailout Or Bull" segment. He has a way with words (and facts). www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYE4gO0b3K4&feature=player_embedded
|
|
|
Post by old3arrows on Apr 8, 2009 4:19:27 GMT -5
I watched the video, and I disagree with the facts that Mr. Brooks was stating. I consider myself middle class and my father as middle class. He worked and retired from GM. When he worked for GM in the 1950's, I know he wasn't making $2.00/hour, so the math doesn't work out. In the 1990's, I wasn't even making $29,000/year making almost $11.00/hour. How many single income families do you know making $75,000/year? I would say the majority of the people I know and consider middle class make far less than that with two people working to support the family.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Apr 8, 2009 7:38:20 GMT -5
I considered myself middle class in1969 when Ihired in at GM 3'500 in 69... 3'600 in 70...7000 in 71 9'000 in 72 ..at the fig's quoted for the 50's it took me over 4 yr's to reach middle class in the 70's I find thosemiddle class fig's hard to beleive? ? my numbers came from ss records sent every year or so
|
|