im sure the high dollar lawyer has it all figured out. the shooting on land vs water and all ther legalities.better get that story straight cowboy. well if i shot a huge alligator i guess i would shoot from 100 yards away also lololol. crocidile dundee did it with a KNIFE and a hot blonde by his side yup
http://cf1.imgobject.com/backdrops/bcd/4...es-original.jpg

I did not intend a smear campaign but instead my observations on the morality - not legality- of shooting wildlife.

My last point was intended as an observation on the state of the justice system.

In any case I agree that I should have stayed out of the thread and I apologize for offending you.

Ren,

I did not intend to upset you or call you any names.
I am ignorant on many subjects. I used the word as it is defined not as an insult.
I still stand behind my opinion that the idea to relocate potentially dangerous animals is not an effective solution due to the fact that there are many potentially dangerous species on land and in the water and they all cannot be moved to someplace that they cannot do harm to humans. Zoos and refuges have had many incidents of animal attacks on humans.

I did want to hear a valid argument that opposes my point of view. I was not looking for a fight or a asking for personal attacks. I also used the word argument as defined as in an open debate.

What really bothers me about this whole incident was the apparent lack of respect for the gator and the comments made by the alleged hunter.

The reason I said I was done was because I had stated my point view and felt that I had supported my arguments for said point of view.

I tend to agree relocation is not an effective solution.

First few realize the cost such a relocation would run, but it would be 4 to 5 figures. If there was suitable habitat and it was cost effective TPWD would likely do it, but populations are established.

I can think of few areas that remote. Perhaps the Neches in the Big Thicket or Sea Rim and a few other areas. The problem is there are already strong established populations with the territories already defined by dominant animals. Introducing another dominant animal is likely to get one killed or the other run out to seek new territory, most likely in conflict with people again.

+1

Hirsch, I'm not sure what you said is entirely accurate. Particularly with regard to it being a legal kill if it was on the bank. I think that's likely where the point of contention lies. Like we had discussed on tkf, where private and public begins and ends often is disputed. I think that's more likely the issue, not that the wardens just have it in for these guys. I'm wondering too, could a ruling in a court on an issue like this set a precedent that might affect those of us who use the river and more importantly the banks for access, camping, fishing, etc?

Could you cut down a tree if it screamed?

You could if it screamed all the time.-Jack Handy


IMO if you have a problem with the killing of any animal leagally then you have no place on this forum.
Even those killed by big bad rich lawyers.

Point taken. If you go back and read hirsch's posts, you'll find what you're looking. You guys seem to be on the opposite ends of this topic. I would like to see ya debate/discuss about this topic & see ya's point views elaborated. Would be an interesting debate/discussion to say the least...so have it guys!

Lusca, the law of where that line is has long been clearly established and is unaffected by this.

Again you are absolutely determined to convict this guy in the court of public opinion whether you have any evidence or not. Everything you insinuate here is conjecture. But I will give you 5 stars for grasping at straws and creating strawmen including how it could be illegal, but the State can't prosecute.

How about presuming innocence until you have something truly meaningful?

Well, just my ignorance then. Where is the line drawn, where does private and public begin and end? Why so quick to condemn the wardens?

Show me were I condemned them. I did state a more complete previous history that you tried to use yesterday in the other forum to insenuate wrong doing because there had been a previous investigation. As Paul Harvey said I just gave the rest of the story.

arent u 2 arguing at the tkf site also. lol geta room

Wow this has really touched on many legal and perhaps ethical/moral issues.

1. The sanctity of life. IMO if we do not value the life of all living beings then we devalue are own life. When we place are selves above other life be it Human or other animal we tend to look down upon "lesser" life and then make decisions from this point of view. I may be using the slippery slope argument here, which in-itself is invalid, but their has been many cases made for extermination of life forms due to this point of view, both human and non human. I am deeply saddened when I hear that people feel justified in the "kill them all" mentality. Which has been expressed in this thread. Our future depends on the biodiversity of this planet.

2. Why Fish? Well the reasons I fish are many and varied. I would also hope that the same could be said for others. I try or would like to think that for me it is not an ego thing. Sometimes it is to eat. Although I probably release 98% of the fish I catch. I like the challenge and technical aspect of solving the problem of catching. I like the connected feeling I get with nature. I do find it hard to catch and release bears unharmed as I think I would be the harmed. It's some of the same reasons I may decided to sleep outside or build a fire when I am not homeless or cold. I don't think these reasons are do to ego but more of a sense of being and my place in the world. If that is part of ego than so be it.

3. Legal. Well that really will be for the courts to decide. Although, in this case, when the alleged hunter takes an animal by his own description with a rifle in public waters my understanding of the law is that it was an illegal act. He has taken this animal from all of us to put on his private wall.

I am the one that mentioned canned hunt. Yes I know the definition of a canned hunt. I said "like" a canned hunt. In that I meant that when you have someone else set it up for you, then you take one shot and leave the carcass in the river (by the alleged hunters own account) it is very much like a canned hunt.
If you dont do some of the work of hunting how sporting could it really be?

In this case Levi McCathern said things that showed it was just about his ego, that he did not value the life he had taken and that he does not have much value or respect for his wife, whom I would imagine would be human. This guy is the quintessential BAD sportsman and human.

I am not a vegetarian, I respect the lives I have taken. I sometimes think about them as a loss and have some remorse.

I really do hope this clarifies my point of view and stops the personal attacks. If you feel my view is wrong or that your view is better I truly would like to hear your view and supporting arguments. I always like the opportunity to learn and better myself.