Ted Nugent Investigation

W

Wirehairs

New member
I like the guy but the motor city mad man may be in some trouble

Officials investigating if Ted Nugent hunted illegally in South Dakota
StoryDiscussionOfficials investigating if Ted Nugent hunted illegally in South Dakota
By Kevin Woster Journal staff rapidcityjournal.com | Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:00 am | (24) Comments

Font Size:Default font sizeLarger font size.
Ted Nugent, left, and his cameraman "Big" Jim Lawson, right, prepare to hunt pheasants at the Dakota Hills Shooting Preserve in Oral on Friday, October 15, 2010. Nugent was hunting pheasants while filming for his television show, "Spirit of the Wild." (Aaron Rosenblatt/Journal staff) .
..State wildlife officials have begun an investigation to determine whether musician Ted Nugent broke the law when he hunted pheasants near Hot Springs prior to his Oct. 16 appearance in Rapid City.

Nugent was featured at a Second Amendment rally sponsored by Citizens for Liberty, a Rapid City area tea party affiliate. Before the rally, Nugent shot pheasants and partridge on a hunting preserve east of Hot Springs, under a special preserve license and regulations.

Now there is a question about whether Nugent could legally hunt in the state, because of his no-contest plea in August to two counts of misdemeanor big-game violations in California.

Nugent pleaded no-contest in Yuba County Superior Court to hunting deer in a baited area and failing to get an authorized signature on a deer tag. Other misdemeanor charges were dropped in a plea bargain with prosecutors there.

News stories on the case report that Nugent paid a $1,750 fine. They do not mention a license revocation, which is imposed for certain game violations.

South Dakota is part of a network of states that honor the hunting and fishing revocations imposed by other states. If Nugentâ??s license was suspended or revoked there, it would be illegal for him to purchase a license and hunt here.

Andy Alban, GF&P law enforcement administrator in Pierre, would not discuss Nugent or the GF&P investigation on Monday.

â??Itâ??s against our policy to comment on active investigations,â?� Alban said.

When asked if that meant there was an active investigation on Nugent, Alban said, â??All I can say is that I canâ??t comment on an active investigation.â?�

Other sources confirmed the investigation.

Nugent couldnâ??t be reached by e-mail Monday. A law enforcement official for the California Department of Fish and Game didnâ??t immediately return a Journal call seeking information on the case.

Alban did talk with the Journal about the Interstate Wildlife Violators Compact, which ties together about three dozen states, including South Dakota and California, in honoring license revocations for hunting, fishing and trapping.

But even prior to the compact, South Dakota had a law that â??essentially says if youâ??re revoked somewhere else, youâ??re revoked here,â?� Alban said.

The compact and individual state laws came in response to â??the transient natureâ?� of many hunters and their ability to continue hunting in some states after losing their licenses in others, Alban said.

Contact Kevin Woster at 394-8413 or kevin.woster@rapidcityjournal.com
 
I don't care for Ted one iota, he's a radical that only serves to make all us gun owners look like idiots. That being said, I don't know how they can regulate him shooting on a preserve where a hunting lic. is not required.

South Dakota is sure on a roll. Might need a attorney to hunt with you from now on.
 
onpoint said:
I don't care for Ted one iota, he's a radical that only serves to make all us gun owners look like idiots. That being said, I don't know how they can regulate him shooting on a preserve where a hunting lic. is not required.

South Dakota is sure on a roll. Might need a attorney to hunt with you from now on.
Click to expand...

In South Dakota you do have to buy a Preserve License it cost $85 for the season or you can buy cheaper short day ones.

I think everyone here knows onpoint's disdain for the state of South Dakota but the Interstate Wildlife Violaters Compact is followed by 35 states Including MN
Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact



Purpose

The purpose of the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact is to assure that in participating states, non-resident violators will receive the same treatment as resident violators. The IWVC member states reciprocate regarding the suspension or revocation of licenses and permits resulting from violation of hunting, fishing, or trapping laws. If an individual's license or permit privileges are revoked in one compact member state, they are subject to suspension or revocation in all other member states. For example, if an Iowa resident has their hunting privileges suspended in Minnesota, their privileges may also be suspended in Iowa and in all other compact states. This helps prevent habitual violators from relocating their illegal activities to other member's states.

The IWVC also has established procedures that cause a non-resident violator who fails to comply with the terms of a citation issued in a participating state to face the possibility of the suspension of his wildlife license privileges in their home state until the terms of the citation are met.

The goal of the IWVC is to facilitate improved enforcement of hunting, fishing, and trapping laws through the cooperation of law enforcement units in member states.

History

The topic of an interstate violator compact was first broached in the 1980s. Law enforcement agencies were looking for a way to deal with individuals who violated wildlife and resource laws outside their home state or in multiple states. Their work came to fruition in 1989 when the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact was passed into law in Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon. Iowa became an active member of the compact in 2003.

Members

Currently, there are 35 states in the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact. They include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

For me this was more interesting information than Ted getting in trouble because I was not aware of this cooperation among states.
 
Try and keep your personal opinion of me to yourself and not on the open board. Have a problem? PM me

Well, I was aware of the states pat together but wasn't aware you need a hunting Lic to hunt on a preserve. I guess we both learned something.

Have a nice day;)
 
From the sound of it, both "hunts", and I use the term loosely, in S.D. were preserve raised pennies to boot. Why you ask would S.D. make a point of this? The California deal was likely the work of an outfitter, seeking to satisfy a client who may, or more likely may not, have knowledge of baiting, unless of course he's shooting over a molasses covered pile of corn. lots of this happens with field shooting doves over rock salt and corn, waterfowl too. Customers arrive a week after baiting occurs can't tell visually anything has been done. Usually allowed to plead no contest, pay a fine and go, actual baiter, a different story. In the meanwhile, be sure you have your dog "visa", and your bail money, especially if you road hunt! Limited Access Places-Hyper Enforcement Faces, South Dakota. Sadly S.D.just ahead of the curve, all states probably headed down the same road. We have a limited resource, pressured to acommodate a large user community. We have a lighting fast information hiway, more rules easier enforcement. Look at the child support enforcement rules, if your behind, no hunting lisence, no drivers lisence, Not saying this is a bad thing, so don't start on the topic, just stating an example, asking where does it stop?
 
Ted really can't claim ignorance of the law. He probably knows more about it then most hunters and some wardens. It appears he thinks he's either above it or has enough money to pay the fines.

Not the kind of guy you want as a hunters spokesman.
 
onpoint said:
I don't care for Ted one iota, he's a radical that only serves to make all us gun owners look like idiots. That being said, I don't know how they can regulate him shooting on a preserve where a hunting lic. is not required.

South Dakota is sure on a roll. Might need a attorney to hunt with you from now on.
Click to expand...

If he would just stick to rock and roll hunters and gun owners would be so much better off.
 
Well I kind of like the idea of Ted advocating for our rights. A bit over the top yes, and not real cool to get cited for hunting violations but I like his message.
 
Is onpoint Ted Nugent? If so, My parents love ya..

How could he not have known about the bait? The pictures of the hunting site showed it all over the ground. I dont care if he hunted at a preserve, i just dont think he should have hunted at all in SD due to his prior violation in Cali.
 
Don't get me wrong I love nugents music and some things he has done for hunters advisary groups but what it really boils down to isa more politically correct BS that only the law makers and high rollers really care about and yes he was wrong to hunt over bait but if the bait was on a preserve type setting then was the owner of said preserve not also wrong for doing it or allowing it its called hunting not killing for a reason if you can't go out every time and feel good about the way it turned out then don't bother even going wether california or any other state baiting is not fair chase
 
Now why in the heck do people support that kind of stupidity. I mean having to buy a license to hunt a place that is licensed. Next we will need a license to buy a license. Yes even MN has gotten out of control on control. Our Local warden tells me he and the judge are even confused on several things. It needs to be simplified. And personally if I paid $85 I would just get a regular lic and go hunting. Can't you hunt a preserve with a regular lic there? Here you just show up at the preserve and go. No lic.

I like what Ted has accomplished such as hunt of a life time etc. It could be an honest mistake. He is a bit out in left field. But has helped with many huge contributions to wild life and unfortunate individuals terminally ill to enjoy a hunt.
 
FCSpringer said:
Now why in the heck do people support that kind of stupidity. I mean having to buy a license to hunt a place that is licensed. Next we will need a license to buy a license. Yes even MN has gotten out of control on control. Our Local warden tells me he and the judge are even confused on several things. It needs to be simplified. And personally if I paid $85 I would just get a regular lic and go hunting. Can't you hunt a preserve with a regular lic there? Here you just show up at the preserve and go. No lic.

I like what Ted has accomplished such as hunt of a life time etc. It could be an honest mistake. He is a bit out in left field. But has helped with many huge contributions to wild life and unfortunate individuals terminally ill to enjoy a hunt.
Click to expand...

I support Nugent creating hunting opportunities for unfortunates. His walking on to the stage of the NRA convention brandishing two AR-15s is totally negative for gun rights in my view.
 
BritChaser said:
His walking on to the stage of the NRA convention brandishing two AR-15s is totally negative for gun rights in my view.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. He should have been carrying one in each hand and two slung on his back.
 
moellermd said:
Well I kind of like the idea of Ted advocating for our rights. A bit over the top yes, and not real cool to get cited for hunting violations but I like his message.
Click to expand...

I rather like Ted. I love watching him hunt because as is portrayed in his shows, he has a lot of respect for the game he takes and he (at least every time I've seen him hunt) seems to display a great amount of ethics when he does it. Just because someone doesn't like his over-the-top methods doesn't make him a bad guy.
Walking out on stage with two AR's was pretty cool in my opinion. If he's advocating for the Second Amendment then he's advocating for ownership of guns like that and not just for the ownership of our shotguns. There's nothing wrong with those guns.
Personal opinion of others doesn't matter much to me. I know what I like and I know when I see something I like. I'd hunt with Uncle Ted any day!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top