This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.
Discussion Topic: On Hunting and Fishing License Revocation
Suppose you break the rules and lose your hunting or fishing license in one state. Should you also automatically loose it in other states, or even all states? That question is becoming a topic of hot debate.
From the Anchorage Daily News:
Alaska is considering joining with other states in a compact to share information on people who have pleaded guilty or been convicted of a crime that led to the revocation of their hunting or fishing privileges. . . .
Now a conviction that results in the loss of fishing privileges in one state can carry over to many more. . . .
"I suspect that all the states in the U.S. will join at some point," said Clay Cummins, assistant chief for the Enforcement Bureau of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Check out the full story and tell us what you think.
I guess it would depend on what you did, or rather, what you got caught doing. I don't think snagging fish is as serious a crime as sniping a trophy bear or sheep. I think the state's DNR should be able to determine the severity of the offense, and then dole out the penalty accordingly, whether it be a slap on the wrist or gettin' thrown in the pokey.
Posted by: Blue Ox | November 09, 2007 at 09:27 AM
If you lost your driving license in one state you wouldn't be able to drive in other states. If you had a marriage license in one state you wouldn't be able to get another. If you loose your hunting license in one state, is absolutely should carry over state lines.
Posted by: David Boones | November 09, 2007 at 10:17 AM
For poaching offenses yes, the punishment should stand for the entire period in all 50 states.
Posted by: jstreet | November 09, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Perhaps if categories of misdemeanor and felony levels of hunting offenses could be sorted out. (e.g. Poaching: lose all rights in all states. Using an underpowered bow - monetary fine, no license suspension.)
Seems worthwhile for serious offenses. Should also be a voluntary pact among states - not a federal mandate.
Posted by: jack | November 09, 2007 at 12:02 PM
I have no problem with this what so ever.
Posted by: Jason | November 09, 2007 at 02:42 PM
I'm with Jack on this one. We need to define the categories of offenses. I would hate to see a hunter make a simple mistake and lose his or her ability to hunt in the future.
Posted by: Nathan | November 09, 2007 at 03:15 PM
I completly agree with this decision. It's sad to know that we need a law like this in place though. Keeping a fish over the limit is just like shooting a spotted fawn. It's illegal, it's wrong, it's poaching.
Posted by: mike crandall | November 09, 2007 at 04:41 PM
What's "snagging fish?" Is it the sort of thing that one has to try to do?
IMO there is a need for commen sense in sentencing and of course for people who unintentionally violate some rule I do not think license suspensions are in order.
Serial violators are the problem. License suspensions across state lines sound good to me.
Posted by: Mike Diehl | November 09, 2007 at 04:59 PM
anytime a judge rules that a convicted game violator should lose hunting/fishing privileges, it should be effective in all fifty states. maybe, just maybe, the threat of losing the privilege would serve as a deterrent.
Posted by: mot | November 09, 2007 at 09:38 PM
Just my two cents but snagging for certain fish is legal in some states,Ox. I know you were making a point not trying to start whole other discussion. They have a point system here in AR. Depends on the severity of the offense. Some dumb ass in southern AR poisoned a bald eagle and got revoked for life and fined 50,000 dollars. I think there should be some way for the states to get together on this. I dont want some scumbag poacher from anywhere USA to get revoked elsewhere and be able to get a licence here.
Posted by: Greg | November 10, 2007 at 09:44 AM
Hey Ox, where are you from? Just curious. We seem to agree on alot of subjects.
Posted by: Greg | November 10, 2007 at 09:49 AM
Snaggin' for spoonbill cats is legal in Oklahoma. At Lock & Dam on the Trinity river near Crockett, Texas, snaggin' sand bass from the Leon county side was legal, illegal on the Houston county side. What was the difference?
If a violater of median income were convicted in Corpus Christi, Texas, what costs would be incurred to obtain an out of state license and make a trip to another state?
If you are a convicted game law violater, what makes any other state think you wouldn't break the laws in their state also?
Lose it (hunting/fishing rights) in ANY state, lose it in ALL states!
Bubba
P.S. Ox - tie on a medium to large treble hook just above a heavy (at least 1 oz.) weight, cast out as far as possible, then "snatch" the line, reel in slack and repeat!
Posted by: Bubba | November 11, 2007 at 10:02 AM
I don't see where the debate lies. Don't do the crime if ya can't pay the fine! Rot in hale dirtbags!
Posted by: as moeggs | November 11, 2007 at 07:59 PM
I think it is dependent of the offense. i dont think any state will revoke your hunting or fishing priviliges for a minor offense. So there is my answer, if a state finds that your hunting or fishing priviledges need to be revoked for a period of time then it should be country wide. the truth is, it will never happen across the board. infomation sharing doesnt happen properly even when its a matter of national security, such as criminal illegal alien reporting. Good luck seeing that whole thing implemented anytime soon.
DB
Posted by: dan batezell | November 11, 2007 at 09:01 PM
Actually this should not even be a question as to what to do. If you are a thief in New York on probation say for car theft, and you move to New Jersey your crime and record follow you. So if you are a lowlife that poaches, hunts out of season, kills over the limit or fails to abide by the laws for hunting and fishing then you are a thief as well. And you are stealing from every other law abiding hunter. The Game laws are way too lenient in almost all cases. Loosing a License for Illegal hunting to thieves that do not follow the Law doesn't do much. They continue to hunt outside the season and do as they please. I agree though if they loose there license any other state should not allow them to buy on. They should loose all there guns, fishing gear, boats, truck, 4 wheeler etc immediately. If they are even seen anywhere close to somewhere a person could hunt they should be put in Jail for twice as lonf as their their probation and license suspended for LIFE.
Posted by: fred | November 12, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Should be an eye for an eye - punishment should fit the crime. And part of the punishment should be whether or not you can still enjoy it in another state. Even if you can, the punishment would include the hassle of having to travel to get there.
Posted by: John | November 12, 2007 at 11:25 PM
On the whole I do not have a problem with the concept. If a poacher will jack-light deer in Pennsylvania they would do the same in New Hampshire. Of course one has to ask how many poachers actually buy licenses? We also should look at punishment fitting the crime issues; here in New Hampshire leaning a loaded firearm up against your car could get you fined and suspended for a year, littering can also get you revoked, not a problem in my book but maybe others will see that as a bit too much.
As to the cretin who poisoned the Bald Eagle; I don't want him hunting in my state or yours! Ever!
SA
Posted by: SilverArrow | November 15, 2007 at 03:44 PM
I think we're all in agreement here that for serious hunting violations yes, but for minor infractions no. The deciding factor will always be the courts where the judge decides if one loses his/her license or not. I have witnessed quite a bit of inequity in sentences handed down by judges based upon the judges like/dislike of hunters, and the defendant's pull/power in the community. Bottom line is how are we going to know who is really deserving of losing their hunting and fishing privileges nationally?
I have some acquaintances who have received tickets (undeserved)for minor violations from a conservation officer really stretching the interpretation of the game law. The possibility of losing your hunting privileges as part of the sentencing is always present. The acquaintances I mentioned are very careful to fully read the regulations digest and are extremely ethical hunters. To say the conservation officer was overzealous in his enforcement of the wording of the regulations would be an understatement. This is posted solely as an extreme example of the other side of the issue. BTW keep the eagle poisoner out of my state too!
Posted by: John R | December 04, 2007 at 10:41 AM