Nugent Reveals Details to Beck About the Alaskan Hunting Trip That Made Him a Target (Kodiak: university, camps)

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by LittleJazzyP

He admitted himself that he broke the law. Why are so many here defending that?

The article you posted a link for above shows the rule Ted Nugent supposedly broke, but this rule the author is referring to appears on a recent hunting regulation, not the 2008-2009, nor the 2009-2010. It has now been made clear, highlighted in yellow, in page 25 of the late hunting regulations. This rule was contained in the hunting regulations for Alaska, but not always published in the hunting regulation booklet. In regards to the Lacey Act, it has nothing to do with the first bear Ted "supposedly" injured, but with the second.

[gobrien]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Perhaps you are assuming too much in relation to what Ted Nugent did.
While I don't know the details why he was not charged for wounding a bear, more than likely the reason why F&G didn't press charges was because he followed the steps required in accordance to the hunting regulations.

If he followed the steps for F&G then he wouldn't have been guilty of violating the Lacey Act.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by gobrien

If he followed the steps for F&G then he wouldn't have been guilty of violating the Lacey Act.

F&G is not Federal, but State. F&G never charged ted Nugent killing a bear illegally.

[gobrien]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Did Ted Nugent injured a bear in a populated area?

According to the reports about Ted Nugent and the bear, he may have missed the shot and nicked the bear with the arrow. When an arrow goes through the lungs and heart area, it's usually covered with blood (the tip, shaft, fletches), and this is an indication that the animal was shot lethally. If this happens, one has no choose but to track the animal. But in this case there was a little blood on the ground where the bear was shot, and the arrow was clean, plus not traces of blood to follow. The rules apply not only to bears, but to moose and any other animal hunted.

The problem with this thread is that most of us aren't using logic when reading the article, but our emotions.

I think my post was logical to the point of inducing a lengthy nap.

How hard can it be to track any bear? They are large, and leave signs very frequently-hair on trees, paw prints....the Nuge is clearly a lazy hunter if he was using bait, must be getting too old to go running around after a bear.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by gobrien

I think my post was logical to the point of inducing a lengthy nap.

How hard can it be to track any bear? They are large, and leave signs very frequently-hair on trees, paw prints....the Nuge is clearly a lazy hunter if he was using bait, must be getting too old to go running around after a bear.

Emotional:

a. How hard can it be to track any bear?

b. Nuge is clearly a lazy hunter if he was using bait, must be getting too old to go running around after a bear


Not knowing about hunting or tracking:
They are large, and leave signs very frequently-hair on trees, paw prints....

Black bears aren't necessarily large. A moose is much larger, and sometimes impossible to find their tracks on the tundra. The same for bears, including the largest, Kodiak. What the hunter usually follows after injuring an animal lethally, is a blood trail. But in the case of Nugent, there was not blood to follow since the arrow did not travel through the vital organs (heart/lungs). Bears aren't leaving hair, slobber, or whatever when running through the forest. They usually do that when rubbing their hide or scratching themselves on trees They do leave tracks on soft ground (sand, mud), but if the bear was running through the forest, as you said, it wasn't running by the water nor a soft-dirt trail.

Bear baiting is something that's done by a great number of hunters throughout Alaska. It's legal, ethical, and often used as a measure for F&G to aid with predator control. Bait hunters aren't any more lazy than you and me.

[Metlakatla]

Ray, I do not believe that you have ever been in SE, have you? If you had, perhaps you would realize that bear are quite abundant there and that there is no need to bear bait. In fact, it seems rather unsporting to do so.

Yawn.

They do leave tracks on soft ground (sand, mud), but if the bear was running through the forest, as you said, it wasn't running by the water nor a soft-dirt trail.

Yet more proof that you have never been to the area in question. Dense brush trails are easy to track.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Ray, I do not believe that you have ever been in SE, have you? If you had, perhaps you would realize that bear are quite abundant there and that there is no need to bear bait. In fact, it seems rather unsporting to do so.

Yawn.



Yet more proof that you have never been to the area in question. Dense brush trails are easy to track.

I haven't been in SE Alaska, but while trails are easy to follow, tracking a bear is not unless it's leaving blood, paw prints, etc., behind. In forested areas of the interior of Alaska, or on the tundra, there is a very thing layer of vegetation where it's extremely difficult to tell if a bear of any kind has just walked on. It takes an expert tracker to track a bear without a blood trail, and in the case of Ted Nugent, more than likely the State didn't press charges was because he did the following: shot at the bear, but missed, just nicking the bear (the shot was not lethal). He found the arrow clean of blood, although there was a little blood on the spot. But if there isn't any blood drops to follow, one can only assume that the bear ran real fast for greener pastures

Again, a lot of you are making too much out of nothing. Even the Lacey Act violation was in this case a misdemeanor. Yes, a stiff cash penalty, but not more than being caught with a joint.

Bear baiting is not sport, anyway. It's hunting, and done throughout Alaska, in Canada (where they are just as abundant), and a lot of other States. The fact that Ted Nugent bear-baited in SE Alaska is a clear example that this is done over there, too.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

I haven't been in SE Alaska, but while trails are easy to follow, tracking a bear is not unless it's leaving blood, paw prints, etc., behind.

Bear baiting is nota sport, anyway. It's hunting, and done throughout Alaska, in Canada (where they are just as abundant), and a lot of other States.

There are hunters who disagree with you on the ethics of bear baiting, and if you had ever been to the area in question, you'd realize that bear baiting isn't necessary. Blackies are very thick there, as I've always stated.

The brush is so thick on that island that unless the bear had run along the beach, which I don't think it did, there would have been a trail of broken, disturbed and bent vegetation to follow. SE isn't like where you live, Ray; the vegetation is very lush and thick. And not letting area resident know about the wounded bear is another indication of lack of ethics on the part of those involved in this hunt.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

There are hunters who disagree with you on the ethics of bear baiting, and if you had ever been to the area in question, you'd realize that bear baiting isn't necessary. Blackies are very thick there, as I've always stated.

The brush is so thick on that island that unless the bear had run along the beach, which I don't think it did, there would have been a trail of broken, disturbed and bent vegetation to follow. SE isn't like where you live, Ray; the vegetation is very lush and thick. And not letting area resident know about the wounded bear is another indication of lack of ethics on the part of those involved in this hunt.

Black Bear Hunting in Southeast Alaska | eHow.com

[NomadicBear]

Nevermind that the horse is dead- somebody get Ray another club.