Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 271

Thread: Of all the people to add another black eye to Alaska hunting; Ted Nugent?

  1. #1
    Member highestview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Haines
    Posts
    1,308

    Default Of all the people to add another black eye to Alaska hunting; Ted Nugent?

    http://www.adn.com/2012/04/20/243329...egal-bear.html

    What an idiot. Most game violators have the brains to not film and broadcast their violations on cable TV. Apparently he winged one and didn't recover it but then actually killed one a few days later and showed both on his show. The wounded animal counts towards the bag limit.

    Ethics, knowledge and preparation. You have to blow off all three to forget your bag limit and be proud of it.
    Born in Alaska: The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; surely I have a delightful inheritance. Psalm 16:6

  2. #2
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    He's also threatened to kill the president, speaks volumes of the guys that like him.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04...ama.html?imw=Y

  3. #3
    Member AK Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mainer_in_ak View Post
    He's also threatened to kill the president, speaks volumes of the guys that like him.
    I thought Ted's meaning when stating his metaphore "I'll either be dead or in jail this time next year" was that he would kill himself if Obama won.

    But then my poetic and literary skills can't find the metaphore in his statement. I guess I needed more liberal arts classes at UAF way back in the day.

    And this is the second time Ted has ended up filming himself breaking a state law and airing it on national TV resulting in his prosecution. When will a grown man learn to read the local regulations for himself?

  4. #4
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mainer_in_ak View Post
    He's also threatened to kill the president, speaks volumes of the guys that like him.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04...ama.html?imw=Y
    Where is the threat to kill the pres?

  5. #5
    Member tlingitwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,258

    Default

    The man is a complete and utter hypocrite, and there is not much worse IMHO.
    In 1492 Native Americans discovered Columbus lost at sea
    _________________________________________________

    If I come across as an arrogant, know-it-all jerk, it's because I am

  6. #6
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Love how Wayne Ross says it's okay 'cause it was just a "crazy" law Uncle Ted broke: GRRRRRRRRR.
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  7. #7
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Just some background on the "crazy law" in SE, this was a proposal that our org (AK BHA) actively supported because we had several issues going on in SE with black bear hunting, particularly with nonresidents (not knocking nonres bear hunters, just that the resource was really getting hammered), one of which was the propensity to wound bears then go after and shoot another. I remember that Jack Frost (Alaska Bowhunters Assn) and us got in a disagreement over this, they opposed it based on just exactly what Nugent said happened, he basically "nicked" a bear, it wasn't a mortal wound. Jack and ABA made a good argument that bowhunters are closer and see what happens much clearer than rifle hunters, but really there wasn't any way we could see to give bowhunters a pass, it was too big a loophole we felt. Interesting how sometimes we all don't agree, but gotta hand it to Jack and ABA, class act and sure could see their point.

    This wounding law was also supported by the guides because too many times they had clients wound bears and would demand they be allowed to go after another.

    In any case, the problems with so many black bear hunters coming into the country there, no limits on opportunity, the wounding that was part of it, led to the new law we have now too that in units 1-3 unless you hire a guide to hunt black bear it's all drawing permit only, don't recall what the cap is.

    Just wanted to clarify how this law came about and why. I can understand that Ted Nugent may not have known about it, but ignorance is no excuse, especially when you are showing this on a tv show promoting hunting and (ostensibly) ethics.

    What bugs me about WAR's comments though is overall it isn't a crazy law, there was a good reason it came about. Is it unfortunate that some bowhunters who "nick" an animal and draw blood have to punch their tag? That's one way of looking at it. In the long run we always felt that this law would force more hunters to be more careful with shots and shot placement. I know the guides have really liked having this law in place, cuz now up front they tell their clients it's the law that if you shoot and wound a bear and they don't retrieve it, you're done. Different terrain down there, ain't all beach shooting.

  8. #8
    Member TWB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    During a Romney support campaign last week Nugent commented that before Obama became president for potentially another term, Nugebt would wind up dead or in prison.
    We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it. We get it rough enough at home; in towns and cities; in shops, offices, stores, banks anywhere that we may be placed

  9. #9
    Member OKElkHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    449

    Default

    I can't believe the crap I'm reading. I am by no means condoning what Ted did, he did break the law as written. This whole situation is, however, a way that the current administration can shut down his 1st Ammendment Right to speak out against the tyrany and abuse of power that our elected officials are exercising over the entire nation. Wake up and see this for what it really is. had Ted not been under investigation for making statements against such abuse of power, no one would have ever heard anything about this particular mistake and it would have not been a federal issue. I bet they are very unhappy that they couldn't charge him with a felony so they could take away his 2nd Ammendment rights as well. It just goes to show how far our government is willing to go to make us "Subjects" to their elitist ideas instead of "Citizens" that control their fate in office. If they can do it to Ted, they can find something on you and do it to you as well. WAKE UP

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Well said bushrat. I recall some of the discussions and envisioned hunters in boats, under the motion of the sea swells and waves taking shots at bears ... only for the hunters see the bears run off into the forest ... and the hunter's then giving up chase.

    I have no congratulations for Ted Nugent for showing the video nor any sympathy for the penalties imposed. Crazy Law or not .... IMO, the system got it right.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    J
    What bugs me about WAR's comments though is overall it isn't a crazy law, there was a good reason it came about. Is it unfortunate that some bowhunters who "nick" an animal and draw blood have to punch their tag? That's one way of looking at it. In the long run we always felt that this law would force more hunters to be more careful with shots and shot placement. I know the guides have really liked having this law in place, cuz now up front they tell their clients it's the law that if you shoot and wound a bear and they don't retrieve it, you're done. Different terrain down there, ain't all beach shooting.
    I guess we all miss or "graze" every once in a while. Nobody make a perfect shot 100% of the time. I can't imagine cutting hair of the brisket off a bear, drawing no blood and the guide telling me I'm done if I was out of state and paid 10K to take home hair when we both knew that bear wasn't dead or dying. I think there has to be some common sense and to be honest, I don't think this law is very balanced in that area. Certainly so when you can clearly see that the shot was not immediately or long term fatal. Now, had he gut shot the bear that's a different story.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OKElkHunter View Post
    I can't believe the crap I'm reading. I am by no means condoning what Ted did, he did break the law as written. This whole situation is, however, a way that the current administration can shut down his 1st Ammendment Right to speak out against the tyrany and abuse of power that our elected officials are exercising over the entire nation. Wake up and see this for what it really is. had Ted not been under investigation for making statements against such abuse of power, no one would have ever heard anything about this particular mistake and it would have not been a federal issue. I bet they are very unhappy that they couldn't charge him with a felony so they could take away his 2nd Ammendment rights as well. It just goes to show how far our government is willing to go to make us "Subjects" to their elitist ideas instead of "Citizens" that control their fate in office. If they can do it to Ted, they can find something on you and do it to you as well. WAKE UP
    From the article, "Nugent signed the agreement April 14. But that doesn't mean he or his lawyer, Wayne Anthony Ross, agree with the hunting regulations for the area."

    So Ted signs the deal last week and then makes the comments to the NRA convention and recently meets with the government agents this week to clear up comments made at the NRA function .... How do those details fit into your assertions?

  13. #13
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Ya'll see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear (as in, there was no threat against the prez... if you understand basic English grammar). If you look at it from a neutral point of view (as in, I could give a rat's patootie about Ted, stupid jack-booted-thug style game laws, or slanted spins on NRA speeches, etc.), you should side with the hunter in this case. The only reason this has come up is due to the unusual fact that he was being filmed with high quality, professional video at the time... oh, and because he is a political hot potato (target). So, well after the fact, they were able to slow down the video to see that the first shot on the first bear brushed against it. In the field, in real time, from the shooter's POV, it was a miss and quite clearly a miss. No wounded animal, hence no strike against the bag limit.

    Every single one of you would have done exactly the same thing in that same situation. You'd have seen the first arrow miss and would have gone up to verify by inspecting the recovered arrow and looking for any blood sign. After confirming your miss, you would have continued your hunt. Any one of you that says otherwise is flat out lying.

    What you have here is the debate about whether you go with the ruling on the field or allow the instant replay to decide the call. Since the other 99.9% of us don't have the luxery of being judged by slow motion photography, the ruling on the field should be the standard.

    That said, I commend Ted for stepping forward, entering his plea and taking the punishment for his "technicality". Remember that he only took one bear, the other one went away uninjured to remain a functional part of the bear population, so there was no harm done. It's not like he killed a 49" moose and walked away, though he is being punished considerably worst than that guy would have been. Ted could have thrown up a ton of money, and thereby wasted a bunch of tax-payer money in a court battle. But he didn't. He did the right thing and I give him full kudos for it.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    Just wait until some day this law "spreads" through out the entire state. Then one fine day one of you shoot at a moose. You do a good search and find no sign of a hit so you go about your business of hunting another. You score with a legal bull then a day or so later F&G contacts you about killing two moose. Seems a group of hunters (or tree huggers) watched you "miss" the first one but in their opinion you hit it and they reported you to F&G.

    Food for thought.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOAT View Post
    So, well after the fact, they were able to slow down the video to see that the first shot on the first bear brushed against it. In the field, in real time, from the shooter's POV, it was a miss and quite clearly a miss. No wounded animal, hence no strike against the bag limit.
    I don't recall the video but from the article in the OP, "There wasn't any blood trail that they could find," Ross said. "There was a little blood apparently at the spot, but nothing that indicated the bear was hard hit."

  16. #16
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Joat, thats all well and good, but the way the article is written it says that there was blood on the ground at the site. Doesnt sound to me like it was an instant replay moment at all. They knew immediatlely that the bear was hit.

    Thats not so say i dont see the ABA's point. I admit that I have nicked deer with an arrow and went on to harvest another one later on. But the laws allowed it where I was.

    I think he was punished pretty darn harshly, probably too harshly considering the offense. I guess someone felt they needed to make a statement and the "Nuge" paints a pretty big target on his back.

    I dont think much of Ted Nugent, but it has nothing to do with him grazing a black bear with his bow.

  17. #17
    Member wykee5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sodak
    Posts
    208

    Default

    Big deal. He made a mistake, he fessed up, and he is paying for it.


    Mainer, has anyone ever mentioned to you that you might be judgemental? Do you really believe that he truly threatend to kill the president? And "Speaks volumes about the guys that like him." Really? Do you care to elaborate on some of these volumes that it is speaking? I would really like to know about anybody that might like someone who is a staunch supporter of American freedoms and the second amendment. Not only do you know what is going on in Ted Nugent's mind, and have judged him, but you have the capacity to take it a step further, and judge everyone who might "like" him. Anything or anyone else you would care to elaborate on and fill us all in on?

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Palmer, Alaska
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Too harsh? Just speculation, but it could be because of what some would call being a habitual offender when it comes to hunting violations.

  19. #19
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    As with all things, the facts are as clear as mud. The court papers state he "wounded" the bear. The ADN article quotes the lawyer as stating there was a little blood, but no trail (and we know how pro-hunting ADN is, so you can take that with a grain of salt). But the first report I read online (which was based on the video) stated that it appeared to be a miss with no evidence of blood and only after doing the digital slow-mo replay was it noted that the arrow grazed the bear. Which one of these stories is true, we'll never know. And quite frankly it doesn't matter. The man stepped forward, agreed to a plea deal, and is taking his punishment.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  20. #20
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    You know...the "draw blood and you're done" is in effect a lot of places- we're not very unique in that regard.

    Go to Africa- you nick it, you just bought it- recovered or not.

    The Nuge gets a lot of bad press, well, cause he's made a career of saying and doing outrageous things- particularly in regards to hunting and gun rights....while I probably fundamentally agree with him more often than not, I don't think he does a good job representing our collective interest.
    "I do not deal in hypotheticals. The world, as it is, is vexing enough..." Col. Stonehill, True Grit

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •