log_jammin: but the limit is four teal ducks per hunter

FTFA

The daily bag limit during the special teal season is four per person per day with a two-day possession limit of eight.

FTA: Agents interviewed all of the hunters and uncovered additional Facebook postings that led them to believe that Lowry had violated daily and possession limits, according to a news release from the agency. The agents determined that Lowry had shot over the limit on one day, and shot his limit on two other days.

Suck it.

Everyone knows it's rabbit season.

So, all he has to do is keep his mouth shut. Go to court. His attorney can claim the photos where photoshopped. That's reasonable doubt right there. And the jury has to be unanimous to convict.

goddamnittohell you said there'd be no math!

I hate sport shooters.

namatad: FormlessOne: The agents determined that Lowry had shot over the limit on one day, and shot his limit on two other days.

so he took the rap for the rest of the hunters??

I think it was more like when questioned, the other hunters blamed it all on him because he's the dumbass that posted the picture that led to them being questioned in the first place.

Potato.

64 divided by 12.... then multiply by 4.6 then...carry.. the 1... Wait, how many ducks in a bushel ?

apoptotic: namatad: FormlessOne: The agents determined that Lowry had shot over the limit on one day, and shot his limit on two other days.

so he took the rap for the rest of the hunters??

I think it was more like when questioned, the other hunters blamed it all on him because he's the dumbass that posted the picture that led to them being questioned in the first place.

And they included themselves in the picture of a law being broken.

A good law meant to protect species from unnatural culling, an situation that could disrupt the ecosystem as a whole.

Charge them all.

They were all teal ducks.

He should have mixed it up with some mauve, some fushia, some magenta and some aquamarine ducks.

What do you do? What do you do?

err, the free-market will sort this out

/amirite?

dukwbutter: So, all he has to do is keep his mouth shut. Go to court. His attorney can claim the photos where photoshopped. That's reasonable doubt right there. And the jury has to be unanimous to convict.

Photo shopped?

claim there were other hunters there.

Why couldn't the photographer be responsible for the extra four?

dukwbutter: So, all he has to do is keep his mouth shut. Go to court. His attorney can claim the photos where photoshopped. That's reasonable doubt right there. And the jury has to be unanimous to convict.

Would this be something that would actually go to a jury.....over a duck?

Shoot the hunter.

hunting threads always make me thankful i live in a fancy neighborhood where game and livestock is is not only killed for you, it is cleaned, butchered and packaged in family-size portions in a refrigerated section of the local grocery market. no fuss no muss purchasing: less math, more meat.

mmmm, meat

/the state won't allow everyone firearms. don't judge me

Custodians of sweet bugger all.

Answer: Imhotep is invisible.

They need to say they're 'protesting' the limits imposed by the rich. It's time we stood up and said 'we'll do whatever we please!'

Easily fixed by caption on bottom: Not pictured - (names of number of guys to make this legal).

I thought you could only get in trouble if your ducks weren't all in a row.

I've never understood how this (or youtube) postings can get people arrested. Obviously if you post a video of you breaking into a house that is one thing, but there have been people busted for underage drinking or doing drugs based on youtube postings.

Let's say that there is a video of someone doing a line on youtube. Without additional evidence, what proves that the line is not sugar or flour? For kids and underage drinking, what's to say that stuff they're pouring from a Jack Daniels bottle isn't iced tea?

For the story in question the law is basically saying "This is a guy who broke the law. He is dishonest and can't be trusted. We can prove this by other statements on his Facebook page." So on the one hand the guy is a law breaker who you can't trust, but the evidence against him is his own statements on Facebook? Based on the assertion that the person is untrustworthy, wouldn't the legitimacy of all of his statements be suspect?

Also, if there is one thing that was repeatedly told to all hunters in Wisconsin growing up, it was don't fark with the DNR.

I was told there would be no math.

i'll always wonder how much of a pussy one has to be to find oneself compelled to sit around waiting for an animal to kill with a firearm and then pose with the carcass as if something was really accomplished. it's not like the animals can shoot back.

i guess that's "tough." especially with all the camouflage clothing and such.

mjbok: I've never understood how this (or youtube) postings can get people arrested. Obviously if you post a video of you breaking into a house that is one thing, but there have been people busted for underage drinking or doing drugs based on youtube postings.

Let's say that there is a video of someone doing a line on youtube. Without additional evidence, what proves that the line is not sugar or flour? For kids and underage drinking, what's to say that stuff they're pouring from a Jack Daniels bottle isn't iced tea?

For the story in question the law is basically saying "This is a guy who broke the law. He is dishonest and can't be trusted. We can prove this by other statements on his Facebook page." So on the one hand the guy is a law breaker who you can't trust, but the evidence against him is his own statements on Facebook? Based on the assertion that the person is untrustworthy, wouldn't the legitimacy of all of his statements be suspect?

Apparently you missed the part of the article that said the facebook post lead to an investigation which found evidence to accuse him of breaking the law, the facebook post is not the sole evidence.

aenemated: i'll always wonder how much of a pussy one has to be to find oneself compelled to sit around waiting for an animal to kill with a firearm and then pose with the carcass as if something was really accomplished. it's not like the animals can shoot back.

i guess that's "tough." especially with all the camouflage clothing and such.

.

And that's why we refer to cats as "pussy". Any questions? Tomorrow we will discuss why a girl's hoo-hoo is also referred to as a pussy. Here's a hint, it has to do with predator instincts against unsuspecting prey. It also has been known to shoot.

manimal2878: Apparently you missed the part of the article that said the facebook post lead to an investigation which found evidence to accuse him of breaking the law, the facebook post is not the sole evidence.

The entire article:

"A Norco duck hunter who posted a photo of his kill on Facebook was cited for violating state game limits, according to the state Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Brandon Lowry, 19, was cited Oct. 27 for violating limits set for the shooting of migratory birds, according to information released by the agency Wednesday.

Wildlife and Fisheries agents were informed of a photo taken during open teal season showing 64 blue-winged teal ducks and 12 hunters. Teal season was open Sept. 10 through Sept. 25.

Agents interviewed all of the hunters and uncovered additional Facebook postings that led them to believe that Lowry had violated daily and possession limits, according to a news release from the agency. The agents determined that Lowry had shot over the limit on one day, and shot his limit on two other days.

The daily bag limit during the special teal season is four per person per day with a two-day possession limit of eight.

Penalties for each offense for migratory bird violations of possession limits are fines between $400 and $950 or up to 120 days in jail, or both, plus court costs and forfeiture of anything seized."

They interviewed other hunters and read other Facebook postings. All of which should be suspect. Not really much of an investigation.

aenemated: i'll always wonder how much of a pussy one has to be to find oneself compelled to sit around waiting for an animal to kill with a firearm and then pose with the carcass as if something was really accomplished. it's not like the animals can shoot back.

i guess that's "tough." especially with all the camouflage clothing and such.

tl; dk

aenemated: i'll always wonder how much of a pussy one has to be to find oneself compelled to sit around waiting for an animal to kill with a firearm and then pose with the carcass as if something was really accomplished. it's not like the animals can shoot back.

i guess that's "tough." especially with all the camouflage clothing and such.

Oh, look. It's the guy who thinks all meat gets made in the grocery store, and nobody should eat anything you don't buy in one. Unless its overpriced and undersized organic vegetables at some trendy farmers market.

Fra_dat_da: Why couldn't the photographer be responsible for the extra four?

Simple fact. If one person in a group of 12 broke the law, and they all get questioned, someone in the 12 will rat him out. Count on it. Whether jealousy, fear or just because he hates the guy, he's getting ratted out.

dukwbutter: So, all he has to do is keep his mouth shut. Go to court. His attorney can claim the photos where photoshopped. That's reasonable doubt right there. And the jury has to be unanimous to convict.

Yep. And the only minor risk is spelled p-e-r-j-u-r-y. It's a felony, and this person might also get to see if a jury is unanimous on that. But you're not running this risk, so I'm sure it will seem perfectly reasonable to you.

aenemated: i'll always wonder how much of a pussy one has to be to find oneself compelled to sit around waiting for an animal to kill with a firearm and then pose with the carcass as if something was really accomplished. it's not like the animals can shoot back.

i guess that's "tough." especially with all the camouflage clothing and such.

I'm honestly curious. Have you ever hunted?

aenemated: i'll always wonder how much of a pussy one has to be to find oneself compelled to sit around waiting for an animal to kill with a firearm and then pose with the carcass as if something was really accomplished. it's not like the animals can shoot back.

i guess that's "tough." especially with all the camouflage clothing and such.

And I can't figure out why people think others go hunting to be "tough". Maybe they like meat that isn't filled with steroids and hormones.

heavymetal: This kid is basically ruining it and violating the unwritten "gentlemen's rule" showing respect for nature and your fellow gamesmen.

Unwritten "gentlemen's" rule? Hunters and fishermen are some of the most hardcore conservationists around. I'd be surprised if it wasn't another hunter that turned them in for going over their limit.