Ok let me say it like this just so people understand what I'm saying....

You have two kinds of poachers; the first is going to poach by any means necessary and the second is only going to do it if it's easy. It's been my experience that there's about a 50/50 split of deer killed by both. The second one is going to hunt by legal means. If he sees a deer he wants, let's say across the property line or at night, and there's a good chance he can kill it without getting caught, he will. That deer typically won't get killed because of fear of someone hearing the report of the rifle and investigating. You cut the sound down to a .22 and the fear of someone hearing the reporte drops dramatically and with that fear dropping, deer being poached will rise accordingly. So if people can legally hunt with a suppresor and they just happen to have a suppressed rifle available when an illegal circumstance presents itself, the odds of that deer dying are going to increase quite a bit. And for the record I'm not saying I do or don't support it, I'm saying let's look at the reality of it and come up with a more comprehensive and honest argument for
It.

So because someone may use something in an illegal way we should make it illegal for everyone right?

With a dead deer n camp. Yeah you're roght

Why is everyone acting like they know what poachers are thinking and why they do what they do?

Can we get a poacher to join in on this thread please and let us know whats really going on?

How do you feel about suppressor's mr. poacher? Would it be better for your poaching?


*all this poach talk makes me want an egg!!!

Yes, let's paint everyone with a such a broad brush due to 'your' experiences. My advice would be for you to hang with a different click if so many of the people you know are poachers.

I am sure you would have used the same weak arguement if we were talking about night vision scopes.

Gosh, Joe has a night vision scope so I just know he's gonna shoot a deer instead of a hog under the feeder.

You either are or are not willing to break the law. The statements that ethical, law abiding hunters will now morph into whitetail poachers simply because of a can hanging off the end of their rifle is ridiculous.

I'll take comfort in the hope that you probably will not be the deciding vote if this goes forward.

Guess people are correct on their assumption, you do like to argue. Have a intellegent conversation, look at the facts, think about someones point of view and do a little brain storming here. I'm not discounting anything anyone said, I'm trying to point out what happens and lend a method to solve what will be a point of contention with this becoming a law. As I've stated several times now, I'm not for or aginst this yet. I'd like to see some good pints made and some intelligent conversation on the matter to educate me so I can make a proper decision

Lol you people. READ!! it's amazing how many people will take offense to anything they don't agree with instead of finding a solution for it or coming to a medium. And even though I've already stated it several times, I don't poach or condone it. I GREW UP around it. It was a way of life and frankly how a lot of people I knew were fed. You don't choose your surroundings as a child good sir

If you would like to solve some of that problem, then turn your poacher buddies into the local GW. You have an opportunity to make some of it stop.

I have to agree with what other posters have said regarding legality and behavior.

I have a history minor and one of my courses was "Pirates and Smugglers in the Modern World". It taught me a lot. The most important thing I learned was every instance of some substance or item or act being banned did not stop the event from occurring. The ban usually had major negative effects on the economy and the society as a whole and was unsuccessful in the original purpose of removing something from society.

In this specific case, persons breaking the law ALREADY by illegally killing game animals DON'T CARE if they break another law by using a silencer. I can't speak as to the sort of person a poacher might be, as that can be determined by a lot of factors (subsistence hunting, killing just to kill something, trophy poaching, etc.) But if they are going to break the law once what is a second time?

The arguments being used to stop silencers on game animal usage could easily be applied to guns "Why would you need one when you have a police force for your protection?" or hunting "Why would you need to hunt when you can just buy meat from the store?" If one's position is "I don't want to use it because I see no need for legal hunters to do so" then that is a very dangerous argument in regards to gun and hunting rights.

Keeping a ban in place only stops law abiding citizens from using the banned item. Law breaking citizens (or non-citizens) will break the law as long as they see a greater reward versus the risk.

And as others have mentioned if a person is deliberately setting out to poach, why wouldn't they just use a bow/crossbow since these are quiet tools?

By the logic of "suppressors make poaching easier by making sound carry less so they should be banned" then should bows and crossbows be illegal because poachers can get away with their crimes? Should law abiding citizens be punished by having "noise makers" added to their bows/crossbows so everyone knows they're shooting?

I am glad TPWD is reviewing their regulations regarding suppressors. We have an opportunity here to expand our gun and hunting rights. And at the very least this looks like an interesting discussion being started.

So, unless it can be proved that it was used on that deer, than no crime can be proven. Just the presence of a silencer in camp has nothing to do with what the deer was killed with.

What's this like the 5th time?? I GREW UP around it. 10-15 years ago bubba. Not my "buddies". Your a smart man from what I can tell by your previous posts, listen, read and think a little more. Take less offense and open your mind a little bit. Quit getting after people and try to understand what they r say g and how to help them understand your perspective as well

but would give reasonable suspicion???

How can someone have an argument by themselves. Either you are having the same argument, or we are having a discussion. I think some of you can't come up with a real discussion so jump to saying people like to argue. That is kind of pathetic. I have looked at the facts you are the only one saying that because someone has a silencer they will all of a sudden turn into a poacher. I am just saying that the laws are irrelevant to a criminal.

How about because we have a 2nd amendment and this should not even be illegal in the first place for a discussion.

LMAO




Reasonable suspicion still does not prove it was used in a crime.

Rocksandkittens although I don't agree with a lot oF what you said THIS is what I was trying to get. You made some very logical and intelligent points there. That's the kind of thinking that it's going to take if this thing is going to get passed and frankly a couple things you said there are enough for me to go along with it

That stuff he said is basically the same things I have said. You just must want to argue with me.

Helomech...pm sent

I do believe reasonable suspicion would allow the GW to seize evidence though. I'm not an LEO so I could be wrong.

I think he was just giving me a hard time about something from a long time ago.

Didn't get anything yet.

Re you going to honestly say you don't see the difference between taking offense and attacking people as opposed to taking consideration to what someone says and then stating your own ideas?

where did I attack you?

I didn't say I made my point as elegantly as he did, but all the things he said I mentioned.

If u can't see it, Me pointing it out won't help

Realy I went and looked back and don't see where I attacked you. If you can't point it out, then I don't believe I did. If I did and you can show me I will apologize.

Alright, must be a difference of opinion then. Maybe I misunderstood and just read your posts as being smart a$$ and condescending when they weren't. My mistake sir. No harm or foul and I'll apologize for jumping to conclusions