$1000 fine enough?

[charlie elk]

Brenton Enos, had more than 200 bluegill over his possession limit at his residence. This was on top of the meat taken from the six illegally harvested turkeys.
The Trempealeau County Circuit Court judge agreed and on Jan. 22 accepted the no contest pleas from Enos, 63, of Eleva, to the charges of possessing 76 percent or more over the legal limit of fish and for possession of untagged turkeys.
Enos was fined about $1,000 for the violations. One firearm was confiscated along with the fish and turkeys. Also, the court revoked Enos’ hunting, fishing and trapping privileges for three years.

Full story here- http://www.rivertowns.net/event/article/id/234516/

Does the punishment fit the crime in this case?
Since he was in my stomping grounds, I might be biased thinking it should have been more severe.

[kygobbler]

I gotta agree with you, I believe the guy got off pretty easy. I remember reading a story a couple of years ago where a guy down here got busted for taking deer and turkey out of season. They charged him something like $700 for every deer and like $200 for every turkey. They based the price due to how much it would cost to replace them. Then he had a pretty hefty fine and lost his hunting priveledge for life.

After reading the story it strikes me odd the game warden wanted to go to the mans house over 2 blue gill. The guy proably made a comment that he catches this many or more every day but still I dont see where that would give the warden the right to go to the guys house and check his freezer. That might also be why the guy got off as cheap as he did?

Now Im really curious how that conversation went at the dock. I have seen and heard of guys that got busted in dove fields for having their plug out of the gun and/ or hunting over a baited field. With the guys that hunted over a baited field they paid more than a $1000 and lost their gun and vechiles but the warden didnt go and check out their freezers at their home.

Where is Paul Harvey for the rest of the story when you need him. :lol:

[kygobbler]

This story also reminds me something that has always confussed me. On fish you have two limits, you have the creel limit and possession limit. The possession limit is always double of the creel. Does the possession limit mean that is all you can have in your freezer? Or lets say there are 3 guys in a boat and the creel limit is 30 and the possession limit is 60 does that mean that the guys can not catch over 60 fish instead of 90?

This has always confused me and no one has ever gave me the explantion because Ive heard it both ways. Maybe one of you guys can explain this to me.

[charlie elk]

game warden wanted to go to the mans house over 2 blue gill

That was 2 bluegills over the limit. In WI there is a daily limit-max number of a species you can catch per day and a possession limit -the max you can have in your freezer. This dude had 200 bluegills in his freezer along with 6 turkeys.
The conversation at the dock would've be interesting. 2 extra sunfish and the CO ends up inspecting the freezer?! In WI a CO does not need a search warrant of any sort only a suspicion.
I had thought WI law called for a fine, restitution based the number of illegal takes, loss of fishing/hunting privileges and loss of all equipment used during the commission of the crime, including vehicle and boat in this case. However, apparently the judge let him off easy or I am mistaken about the legal penalties.

[grizzly]

i'm sorry but i think these kind of guys need to see some jail time. i mean does takeing their tags really mean any thing to them they're already breaking the rules i'll bet this guy pays his fine and he'll be out there agin he'll just be sneakerer about it .i say put some of these guys jail for six months and maybe it will put some fear in to them.......wayne

[turkey junky]

big fine & a lifetime revoke of hunting/fishing license forever would work take all his gear & guns & actually check up once or twice during season on the guy to keep em honest...

but jail for 6 month is kinda crazy maybe a month? but i hate poachers also but that would just send more folks to jail & there are lots of guys in jail for B/S laws sucking up tons of $$$ from tax payers each yr... it would just make it worse...

they do need to be punished thow!!! much worse then this man was...

[grizzly]

i hear what you're saying TJ little to exstream, heat of the moment post..but a some of these poachers are making big bucks buy selling their plunder and a fine and loseing tags ain't going to stop them . until we as hunters don't start demanding tougher punishments it will never change....wayne

[turkey junky]

i agree 1st time depending on the amount poached should be a big big fine weapons taken away banned from hunting ETC. if they ever get caught again throw the book at them they dont learn the 1st time forget them they should be checked on a un-regular basis to keep em honest???

if you sell the poached game/fur thats another story also then cops get into things or federal wardens they deserve it at that point

[Cut N Run]

There isn't even a limit on the number of Bluegills you can keep here. Some folks ask you not to throw 'em back in their pond if you catch any. It is kind of hard to imagine anyone getting fined over bream, but rules are rules. Taking turkeys over the limit is another ballgame altogether. I think confiscation of weapons, a $1,000 fine, and some type of wildlife related community service is in order to repay the debt. It would crush me to lose my hunting & fishing privileges for 3 years. Even if they continue to hunt or fish unlicensed, if they ever get caught doing it without a license, it would be their @$$ the next time.

I would rather see jail time for dangerous criminals. No need to spend tax payer dollars on someone who doesn't need to be caged. I believe that a lot of community service is the answer. That kind of penalty gets things done without expending much paid manpower. It may force the offender to look at things from a different angle and reconsider their actions in the future. I used to oversee some court ordered offenders at a place I used to work. I expected them to work and not slack off when they were in my charge. If they started goofing off or dragging @$$, I'd give them more difficult or annoying tasks.

Now, a repeat offender is a different story. I'd be willing to contribute some $$ to have them locked up. Stack some community service on top of that once they get out too. I think I may go after the individuals who purchased wild game from the poacher too. The hunting & fishing regulations aren't so difficult that you can't play within them. If you are poaching wildlife, you're stealing from everybody.

Jim

[dewey]

I think confiscation of weapons, a $1,000 fine, and some type of wildlife related community service is in order to repay the debt. It would crush me to lose my hunting & fishing privileges for 3 years. Even if they continue to hunt or fish unlicensed, if they ever get caught doing it without a license, it would be their @$$ the next time.

I would rather see jail time for dangerous criminals. No need to spend tax payer dollars on someone who doesn't need to be caged. I believe that a lot of community service is the answer. That kind of penalty gets things done without expending much paid manpower. It may force the offender to look at things from a different angle and reconsider their actions in the future. I used to oversee some court ordered offenders at a place I used to work. I expected them to work and not slack off when they were in my charge. If they started goofing off or dragging @$$, I'd give them more difficult or annoying tasks.

Now, a repeat offender is a different story. I'd be willing to contribute some $$ to have them locked up. Stack some community service on top of that once they get out too. I think I may go after the individuals who purchased wild game from the poacher too. The hunting & fishing regulations aren't so difficult that you can't play within them. If you are poaching wildlife, you're stealing from everybody.

Jim

Well said Jim and I agree completly with what you said.

Dewey