Poacher running for President of AFGA

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

1990 was a bad year for ol' Stevie.

Are you saying that this conviction people are talking about is from 30 years ago? I thought this sounded like someone stirring the pot when no names or specific details of the offence, dates etc were provided originally. If this really is something from 30 years ago, and Steve has been a huge contributor to Fish and Game for 50 years, got to think there is a point where he has atoned for his sins. Game act still isn't a hanging offence in my books, nor should it be a life long millstone.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Are you saying that this conviction people are talking about is from 30 years ago? I thought this sounded like someone stirring the pot when no names or specific details of the offence, dates etc were provided originally. If this really is something from 30 years ago, and Steve has been a huge contributor to Fish and Game for 50 years, got to think there is a point where he has atoned for his sins. Game act still isn't a hanging offence in my books, nor should it be a life long millstone.

Unless someone wants to correct me, then yes I believe this is what they are talking about.

[hilt134]

I have never really heard of the afga so I can’t really see it mattering either way. Dude messed up 30 years ago I’d say there’s a chance he’s come past it. Also what do they do? I mean I’ve only been hunting for 5 years now and I can’t say I’ve ever heard them make any sort of statement or affect? Maybe having a guy who once poached somthing isn’t their biggest worry.

[ebspol]

?

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Are you saying that this conviction people are talking about is from 30 years ago? I thought this sounded like someone stirring the pot when no names or specific details of the offence, dates etc were provided originally. If this really is something from 30 years ago, and Steve has been a huge contributor to Fish and Game for 50 years, got to think there is a point where he has atoned for his sins. Game act still isn't a hanging offence in my books, nor should it be a life long millstone.

All I could find was an antlerless elk issue
Don’t know the whole story, but this isn’t on the same level as the McMahon offences. The only thing you can do with an antlerless elk is to feed your family.

No where near the international fiasco that McMahon was directly involved with. Never mind being fined 137k for a different violation

Yes the rules are there for a reason and everyone must abide by them. But I would not put these two people in the same class

[cody j]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

All I could find was an antlerless elk issue
Don’t know the whole story, but this isn’t on the same level as the McMahon offences. The only thing you can do with an antlerless elk is to feed your family.

No where near the international fiasco that McMahon was directly involved with. Never mind being fined 137k for a different violation

Yes the rules are there for a reason and everyone must abide by them. But I would not put these two people in the same class

If people judged traffic violations the way some judge hunting violations, they would want you to permanently lose your drivers licence for a seatbelt ticket or going 10 Kim’s over the speed limit. I’m not sure that killing a cow elk should follow someone around for the rest of their life.

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by cody j

If people judged traffic violations the way some judge hunting violations, they would want you to permanently lose your drivers licence for a seatbelt ticket or going 10 Kim’s over the speed limit. I’m not sure that killing a cow elk should follow someone around for the rest of their life.

I have to agree. This is just ****e disturbing and one more attempt to discredit an organisation that doesn't deserve this kind of stuff. Be free to disagree with the AFGA but try to keep it in the realm of the reasonable. The OPs user name of Dicknormal seems to be well founded.


I don't know the story but my bet is it went something like this. Shot in error, turned himself in and got charged for the error. From what I know of Steve, I find it hard to believe he intentionally shot something without having a tag for it. With enforcement the way it has been for 40 years, what are the odds you would ever get caught unless you fessed up yourself.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Dean2

I have to agree. This is just ****e disturbing and one more attempt to discredit an organisation that doesn't deserve this kind of stuff. Be free to disagree with the AFGA but try to keep it in the realm of the reasonable. The OPs user name of Dicknormal seems to be well founded.


I don't know the story but my bet is it went something like this. Shot in error, turned himself in and got charged for the error. From what I know of Steve, I find it hard to believe he intentionally shot something without having a tag for it. With enforcement the way it has been for 40 years, what are the odds you would ever get caught unless you fessed up yourself.

I believe very much in second chances, but I also believe in consequences. You wouldn't support Lloyd McMahon would you?

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by sns2

I believe very much in second chances, but I also believe in consequences. You wouldn't support Lloyd McMahon would you?

To put the two into even the same discussion doesn't really make much sense. Shooting a cow elk 30 years ago, likely in error, versus decades of intentionally breaking the law for large profits really is two entirely different categories of offences. Kind of like comparing the head of the Cali Cartel to someone that got pinched for having a joint on them. Both broke drug laws, should the punishment be the same?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by cody j

If people judged traffic violations the way some judge hunting violations, they would want you to permanently lose your drivers licence for a seatbelt ticket or going 10 Kim’s over the speed limit. I’m not sure that killing a cow elk should follow someone around for the rest of their life.

There is no victim when someone goes 10km over the limit , or doesn't wear a seatbelt, but poaching is stealing from the other sportsmen.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

There is no victim when someone goes 10km over the limit , or doesn't wear a seatbelt, but poaching is stealing from the other sportsmen.

Speeding through a playground deserves a harsher punishment than wildlife charges IMO.
One has a high potential to kill children. The other has zero chance of that.
Perspective.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Speeding through a playground deserves a harsher punishment than wildlife charges IMO.
One has a high potential to kill children. The other has zero chance of that.
Perspective.

Shooting around occupied buildings without permission is an offense under the wildlife act, and it definitely has the potential to kill children? So does shooting along or across a highway. The Wildlife Act is like the traffic safety Act, some offenses under both acts are potentially dangerous, some are not.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Speeding through a playground deserves a harsher punishment than wildlife charges IMO.
One has a high potential to kill children. The other has zero chance of that.
Perspective.

What’s your definition of speeding? Doing 35 or 135?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Shooting around occupied buildings without permission is an offense under the wildlife act, and it definitely has the potential to kill children? So does shooting along or across a highway. The Wildlife Act is like the traffic safety Act, some offenses under both acts are potentially dangerous, some are not.

You said poaching specifically.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Dean2

To put the two into even the same discussion doesn't really make much sense. Shooting a cow elk 30 years ago, likely in error, versus decades of intentionally breaking the law for large profits really is two entirely different categories of offences. Kind of like comparing the head of the Cali Cartel to someone that got pinched for having a joint on them. Both broke drug laws, should the punishment be the same?

I believe in second chances = Steve

I believe in consequences = Lloyd

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood me.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

What’s your definition of speeding? Doing 35 or 135?

That’s going to be different for many people. Basically fast enough you can’t stop if a kid darts out from behind a parked car for example.
Gotta be extra careful in playground and school zones.
Other zones can be more leinient.

[cody j]

Originally Posted by Dean2

To put the two into even the same discussion doesn't really make much sense. Shooting a cow elk 30 years ago, likely in error, versus decades of intentionally breaking the law for large profits really is two entirely different categories of offences. Kind of like comparing the head of the Cali Cartel to someone that got pinched for having a joint on them. Both broke drug laws, should the punishment be the same?

This is the point I was making, I would look differently at someone who had 1 violation years ago and didn’t do it again as opposed to someone with a poaching track record decades long

[huntwat]

Lloyd McMahon is a very bad comparison. As is, APOS.
AFGA has a good reputation and history. Although , I do disagree with some of their views.
I don’t know Witiuk. All I know is he is an “outdoorsman” with a record.
Now, if AFGA decides it is ok to have him as president, it would be an asterisk on their views and direction. It would not be a good news item for them. Maybe Witiuk made a mistake and has done good ever since, but it is and always will be a black mark against him. That can not be changed. It would be like having a prime minister that has black marks in his past. Oh wait..........

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

You said poaching specifically.

And I also specified no seatbelt, and traveling 10km over the speed limit, I didn't mention a school zone, you introduced the school zone to try and twist what I posted, into a worst possible case scenario, to promote your own agenda.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And I also specified no seatbelt, and traveling 10km over the speed limit, I didn't mention a school zone, you introduced the school zone to try and twist what I posted, into a worst possible case scenario, to promote your own agenda.

Lol agenda...
My whole point is others safety tops an animal.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

There is no victim when someone goes 10km over the limit , or doesn't wear a seatbelt, but poaching is stealing from the other sportsmen.

This is starting to sound like the guy who put his hand on some chick's boob in his teens and is now a Senior, being vilified. Some things should just be left in the past, that's how we ended up in the mess we're in.

Grizz

[curtis_rak]

I don’t know any of these people being talked about, but I am generally aware of the mandate of the AFGA (I had to refresh my memory here; https://www.afga.org/about-us-who-we-are/ )

Here’s the thing - yes people can change, I’m totally on board with that. The problem is that because of the way things are this day and age (the internet/social media, anti-hunting, etc) it would be dangerous to the credibility of the organization to have a person in charge who has a tainted past that actually goes against what the AFGA stands for.

If this person hasn’t publicly fallen on his sword as part of his AFGA election campaign/statement/bio rest assured it will be dredged up (like it is right now on this board), and in other places, and it will just wear away at the credibility of a group that’s likely under fire a lot by the anti hunters already. I think the same generally idea would apply to APOS as well, which is a group I know even less about than the AFGA...

Just my 2 cents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cement Bench]

Originally Posted by Dean2

To put the two into even the same discussion doesn't really make much sense. Shooting a cow elk 30 years ago, likely in error, versus decades of intentionally breaking the law for large profits really is two entirely different categories of offences. Kind of like comparing the head of the Cali Cartel to someone that got pinched for having a joint on them. Both broke drug laws, should the punishment be the same?

you don’t know it was in error, most likely NOT

your drug comparison is just silly

Let us get all the facts we can then don’t compare but criticize on the facts

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by curtis_rak

I don’t know any of these people being talked about, but I am generally aware of the mandate of the AFGA (I had to refresh my memory here; https://www.afga.org/about-us-who-we-are/ )

Here’s the thing - yes people can change, I’m totally on board with that. The problem is that because of the way things are this day and age (the internet/social media, anti-hunting, etc) it would be dangerous to the credibility of the organization to have a person in charge who has a tainted past that actually goes against what the AFGA stands for.

If this person hasn’t publicly fallen on his sword as part of his AFGA election campaign/statement/bio rest assured it will be dredged up (like it is right now on this board), and in other places, and it will just wear away at the credibility of a group that’s likely under fire a lot by the anti hunters already. I think the same generally idea would apply to APOS as well, which is a group I know even less about than the AFGA...

Just my 2 cents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You put it in words much better than me.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by curtis_rak

I don’t know any of these people being talked about, but I am generally aware of the mandate of the AFGA (I had to refresh my memory here; https://www.afga.org/about-us-who-we-are/ )

Here’s the thing - yes people can change, I’m totally on board with that. The problem is that because of the way things are this day and age (the internet/social media, anti-hunting, etc) it would be dangerous to the credibility of the organization to have a person in charge who has a tainted past that actually goes against what the AFGA stands for.

If this person hasn’t publicly fallen on his sword as part of his AFGA election campaign/statement/bio rest assured it will be dredged up (like it is right now on this board), and in other places, and it will just wear away at the credibility of a group that’s likely under fire a lot by the anti hunters already. I think the same generally idea would apply to APOS as well, which is a group I know even less about than the AFGA...

Just my 2 cents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone read this over and over again.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by cody j

If people judged traffic violations the way some judge hunting violations, they would want you to permanently lose your drivers licence for a seatbelt ticket or going 10 Kim’s over the speed limit. I’m not sure that killing a cow elk should follow someone around for the rest of their life.

Killing a cow elk on purpose is a criminal offense, and yes you have that forever. A criminal record is a criminal record.
What is the issue with that? Slippery slope, when causal internet observers feel they are above the law, or think they should decide which laws deserve obeying.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by curtis_rak

I don’t know any of these people being talked about, but I am generally aware of the mandate of the AFGA (I had to refresh my memory here; https://www.afga.org/about-us-who-we-are/ )

Here’s the thing - yes people can change, I’m totally on board with that. The problem is that because of the way things are this day and age (the internet/social media, anti-hunting, etc) it would be dangerous to the credibility of the organization to have a person in charge who has a tainted past that actually goes against what the AFGA stands for.

If this person hasn’t publicly fallen on his sword as part of his AFGA election campaign/statement/bio rest assured it will be dredged up (like it is right now on this board), and in other places, and it will just wear away at the credibility of a group that’s likely under fire a lot by the anti hunters already. I think the same generally idea would apply to APOS as well, which is a group I know even less about than the AFGA...

Just my 2 cents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that is an excellent point, many people have no actual dealings with AFGA, and only know what they see online. If this person was elected president, it will further damage the image of AFGA for many people. AFGA depends greatly on affiliations with Alberta ranges, and every time a major range breaks away, they lose thousands of memberships. This could cost them many thousands of memberships. It wouldn't hurt my feelings, but some people would be greatly disappointed.

As to the actual offense that led to the conviction, we can't know what actually happened, and what intent existed, so any speculation, is just that.

[cody j]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Killing a cow elk on purpose is a criminal offense, and yes you have that forever. A criminal record is a criminal record.
What is the issue with that? Slippery slope, when causal internet observers feel they are above the law, or think they should decide which laws deserve obeying.

About 25 yrs ago a couple of my neighbors drew cow elk tags in a zone a little ways from home. They filled their tags and went into F&W to register their elk, when they showed on a map where they killed them they were informed that they were a mile out of their zone. There is was no excuse for their mistake and they paid the price for it. Now 25 yrs later when I see these guys should I view them as no good pos poaching sobs?
I don't know the guy running for president or any details about what he did, but did he make a dumb mistake ? Or do something like intentionally shooting an animal off the road by a house without permission and no tag? All that being said I can see the point of people who said it's doesn't look good for them to have a president with any violations in the past. It could just provide ammo for someone to attack them.

[Who Da Fisherman]

How many of us have shot gophers from the truck or used it just once as a rest?
law broken, guilty as charged same as any other broken law.
WDF

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by Who Da Fisherman

How many of us have shot gophers from the truck or used it just once as a rest?
law broken, guilty as charged same as any other broken law.
WDF

You are correct, how many of us are running for president of afga?