Posted on 07/13/2016 9:12:49 AM PDT by dware
Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
Neither should the states. Forget hunting, in most states now, if you have poisonous serpents in your yard, or chicken hawks attacking your poultry you can be jailed for harming or even moving them. This was not true in my state as a child, but it sure is now. Likewise if a bobcat or bear are prowling around your immediate living area and attacking pets/livestock; unless you catch them in the act, too bad, so sad. Too many urban dwelling idiots who don't comprehend the effects of their idiocy on those who have to live with the consequences every day. All the arguments about "hunting to extinction" are utter nonsense. With so much state and federal lands (where they can protect animals if they want), there will always be plenty of critters, unless they are so unfit for survival they need the wildlife equivalent of affirmative action. A man should be able to do as he pleases on his own land (and yeah, I know many do, but at risk of very serious consequences).
In this case i’m not sure the property owner authorized it. So if it wasn’t poaching wouldn’t it be theft?
.
“Fringe Benefits” denied?
.
My comment was intended to be insultingly facetious to the current regime but your second sentence shows that you saw that ;’}
Schadenfreude.
They should have claimed self defense
(BTW - how nice of the person filming to do something to chase the deer off)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGGbozilko
Samson law...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.