Harassing Wildlife

R

Rich in AZ

New member
I was informed by Az.Game and Fish last Fri. that I can no longer shoot coyotes with a paintball gun as it is considered harassment. I am required to shoot them with a firearm. Does this make no sense to anyone else?

------------------

Rich Higgins
 
Uhhhh, no...But thanks for posting this. I was beginning to worry that that drop of acid I took in HS was making a re-emergence. All those rainbow colored coyotes in AZ were freaking me out
biggrin.gif



Disclaimer: I never took acid! So kids, just say no..I was just joshin'
wink.gif


------------------
Bob
fdfa3b5b.gif
 
Rich,

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and quess that if the coyotes had a say so they'd prefer the paintball gun to the .223!

So did you get busted or did you just make the mistake of asking if it was ok?

Doug
 
Hey Rich, hows it going ?

(Slipping on the Devil's Advocate Hat here, seems to fit pretty good.. quite rakish actually...)

Actually yeah, I can see it... falling under "Animal Welfare" criteria.
Government supported institutions take Animal Welfare very seriously, College Biology Labs go through an enormous amount of paperwork before ever touching or impacting a living creature. Extremely Black and White.

Ive seen the black/blue/purple welts on my brother from paintballs. And he wears protective gear for his face and "delicates".

Luckily he can wash his clothes and get it off of him. I imagine Bobcats, Foxes and Coyotes would end up "licking" it off to clean themselves. Paintballs are supposed to be non-toxic but I hear they taste pretty darn bad.

If that isnt harassment, what is ??? y'know ?

Robb

PS: Did you call and ask them to get back to you about it or did someone "rat you out" ? (or are they "watching" us)

-------------------------------------

Edit: Good example and light reading...
http://www.ahsc.arizona.edu/uac/iacuc/index.shtml

A. PAIN AND DISTRESS: DEFINITIONS
1. Pain is an awareness of acute or chronic discomfort, occurring in varying degrees of severity, and resulting from injury, disease, or emotional distress as evidenced by biological and/or behavioral changes.
2. Acute Pain results from a traumatic, surgical, or infectious event that is abrupt in an onset and relatively short in duration. It is generally alleviated by analgesics.

3. Chronic Pain results from a longstanding physical disorder or emotional distress that is usually slow in onset and has a long duration. It is seldom alleviated by analgesics but frequently responds to tranquilizers combined with environmental manipulation and behavioral conditioning.

4. Distress is an undesirable physical or mental state resulting from pain, anxiety, or fear. Its acute form may be relieved by tranquilizers. Sustained distress, however, requires environmental change and behavioral conditioning and does not often respond acceptably to drug therapy




[This message has been edited by Robb/Scottsdale/AZ (edited 01-30-2002).]
 
Hey Robb, going fine with me, how's it going with you? Actually yeah, I can see it too, having dealt with government sponsored institutions all of my adult life. However, the dept. representative I spoke with apparently is not one who waded through tons of paper nor touched a living animal. When I asked why it was permitted to shoot them with a centerfire rifle but not a paintball gun she responded "With a rifle you're putting them out of their misery, with a paintball you're just harassing them and that's against the law"--- "Maam, when they come into the call they are not in misery, and they're not in misery after they get hit with a paintball. I've been shot many times with paintballs and I definitely prefer that to being shot with a .223."--- silence --- "Maam?" " It's against the law." " Yes, Maam. I wont do it anymore." To answer you and Doug I called them Fri. after Jay Nistetter told me one of the club members said that he believed that the dept. looked upon this fun and humane method of hunting as harassment. Jay and I were going to call and film on Sat. and we thought it might not be a good idea to capture an illegal activity on film. So, before I took after them with paint, when I wanted to hunt but didn't feel like killing them I would try to get them in close and curious and shoot them through one of their ears. Made a nice clean hole, cauterized, no blood. I win, but they really didn't lose and I'd go home at the end of the day feeling good. I know that will fall under the umbrella of harassment, but I can't believe I'll ever be cited for poking a hole in an ear instead of blowing their brains over the country side.

------------------

Rich Higgins
 
Just don't admit to shooting them through the ear on purpose. If you shoot to kill and miss, that's OK, stuff happens. But that would qualify as intentionally shooting to wound, and they may drag out the harrassment valuation on that.


------------------
"When They turn the pages of history,
When these days have passed long ago.

Will they read about us in sorrow,
for the seeds that we let grow?" - RUSH, "A Farewell To Kings"
 
they may drag out the harrassment valuation on that
Click to expand...
Stu, do you really think they could make that stick? It would be no more than the puncture made by a biologists ear-tag, minus the stress of capture and release. That's the trouble with most laws. They are rarely well thought out.
 
Dunno for sure, but maybe. An example that may be relevant:

In AZ it is legal to use a gun to defend yourself. If you do so, you must shoot to kill. If you shoot to kill and miss, just wounding the goblin, that's OK, but if you intentionally shoot to wound, say in the leg, and let anyone know that you did that on purpose, you could legally be charged with excessive use of force. The legal presumption being that if the situation wasn't serious enough to warrant killing, you were not justified in pulling out a gun.

Now, apply it to a game animal: It's legal to kill one, subject to the hunting laws. But it's illegal to harass the same critter in a non-lethal manner. Already established per his phone call. I would worry that intentionally shooting one through the ear for fun just might meet the test.

Might depend a lot on what the particular Game & Fish officer thought about it at the time. Wouldn't want to find out the hard way.


------------------
"When They turn the pages of history,
When these days have passed long ago.

Will they read about us in sorrow,
for the seeds that we let grow?" - RUSH, "A Farewell To Kings"
 
Sooo, if you're a "bad shot" and shoot to kill, but don't, then you're legal. But if you're a "good shot" and intentionally put one in his kneecap to fend him off, then you've committed a crime.
It's stupid laws like that that endorse and encourage lying. No wonder this country's screwed up.

[This message has been edited by NASA (edited 01-30-2002).]
 
Yeah, I reacted the same way when I first learned of it. BUT, it does make some sense.

You can only use lethal force to respond to a threat (from a human) great enough to warrant it: fear of death or serious bodily injury, to yourself or another human. Can't use it to protect property, etc. Can't brandish a gun, in AZ that's a felony. A gun is legally considered a lethal weapon. You simply may not draw it, unless the situation is grave enough that you need to kill to stop it. If the situation is not that grave, you're required to use non-lethal means to deal with it.

Yes, it can get nasty in application. Far better to know and understand it, so you don't get in a heap of trouble simply by saying the wrong thing after it's over.

It's bad, but people have actually gotten longer sentances for abusing animals than for killing people. Screwy enough that I'd tread with a lot of care in a situation like this, sadly.


------------------
"When They turn the pages of history,
When these days have passed long ago.

Will they read about us in sorrow,
for the seeds that we let grow?" - RUSH, "A Farewell To Kings"
 
Stu, so EVERY self defense shooting now is because of "fear for my life"? A few weeks ago, a 300 lb. woman was shot to death by 15 uniformed officers in L. A. She had a knife and wouldn't drop it when ordered. All 15 policemen were "in fear of their life" when they opened fire on her. The cop closest to her was 25 feet away when he started shooting.
Poor guys! It must have been terrifying for them.
 
Rich - Harrasssment takes even less that you might imagine. The other day I was talking to one of our national park rangers. He said that it was DEFFIANTELY not legal to call with a camera in a national park. The act of calling even with a camera was considered to be harrassment by the officials. Stupid! I geuss that if you see an animal walking along in a national park and scare him by hollaring at him you would be harrassing him.

Michael
 
My 2 kids and I were escorted off the Phoenix Zoo property one hot August when I used a predator call to get the critters moving so the kiddies could see them. We had an entourage of 30 kids and parents. The zoo came alive and the animals were being themselves for a change.
Zoo Officials claimed that I was causing the animals undo stress.
Our zoo entrance fees were politely returned and when the kids got home they burst into the house telling MOM that DAD got us KICKED OUT OF THE ZOO!!!

------------------
Blow A Rhino
 
Congradulations, you've found the magic loophole. Police somehow mange to stay exempt of the same restrictions applied to private citizens.

Another example of this is hitting the wrong person. If you or I shoot (legitimately) at a criminal and somehow hit a bystander, we'll face charges. I've never heard of a cop being chrged under such circumstances.

AZ law is great when it comes to owning and mostly carrying guns. It gets pretty twitchy and leaves a lot to be desired in actually using one defensively.


------------------
"When They turn the pages of history,
When these days have passed long ago.

Will they read about us in sorrow,
for the seeds that we let grow?" - RUSH, "A Farewell To Kings"
 
Back
Top