Animal-rights group ties gambling laws to Kansas coyote hunt
-
http://www.kansas.com/sports/outdoors/article109921747.html
The Animal Legal Defense Fund, based in San Francisco, filed a lawsuit against the organizers of the WaKeeney hunt. Jordan Bleske, one of the organizers, said the suit was settled by agreeing to not hold it again and paying the organization $2,000 in legal fees.
The Jan. 9 hunt was the only one held by Bleske and two friends. He would not say how many hunters entered or how many coyotes were shot.
“It’s been resolved,” said Bleske, 24. “I’ve moved on.”
Sarah Hanneken, a lawyer for ALDF, said they cited Kansas’ gambling laws to say that the calling contest was a game of chance. Entrants paid $80 to participate in the one-day event. The grand prize of $500 went to whoever killed the most coyotes that day.
“As a general matter, anytime you have to pay to participate to win a prize that is largely based on chance, that is going to fall within the definition of gambling,” Hannekin said.
Her group represented Western Plains Animal Refuge in Hays.
“These contests are not welcome in Kansas,” said Brendon McCampbell, the refuge’s director. “We are happy this horrible event has been canceled, and we hope others like it will also be ended soon.”
While I'm not a fan of coyote contests... this is just retarded. I bet we'll see more of it.
-
Ugh.
-
What a slippery slope this is on top of.
-
Fucking liberal piece of shit.
-
They settled. That's the problem. And in doing so they established precedent that will fuck the rest of us.
A halfway decent lawyer could have argued that there's substantial skill involved in calling, as well as selection of sets and marksmanship.
That's not gambling, that's sport.I think It would have gone in favor of the defendant easily.
-
@ragnarnar said:
They settled. That's the problem. And in doing so they established precedent that will fuck the rest of us.
A halfway decent lawyer could have argued that there's substantial skill involved in calling, as well as selection of sets and marksmanship.
That's not gambling, that's sport.I think It would have gone in favor of the defendant easily.
And what you and the most of us think on this site is completely different then the way out our court system works.
Liberalism is a mental disease and it has spread. All it takes is one liberal judge to hear this case and the plaintiff is fucked. He saw his cheapest option and took it. Your not going to hire a lawyer for less than $2000 to take this case to court. Then if that liberal judge agrees with the liberal animal rights people, the case now goes to another court.
-
Our rights will be lost incrementally, and by conceding to this, these braindead assholes now have another foothold to erode them further.
Were I 24 again, I'd probably have gone the same way and settled. Now that I'm older and much more bitter I'd fight it tooth and nail.
There are groups out there that provide free legal help to pro gun causes. That's one of the only reasons I keep an active NRA membership. It's just unfortunate it had to come down this way.
Our forefathers would be shooting by now.
-
@ragnarnar I agree wholeheartedly.
-
-
@ragnarnar said:
That's one of the only reasons I keep an active NRA membership.You better check into the NRA's views on contest hunting before you are so certain they'd have your back.
-
@orkan said:
You better check into the NRA's views on contest hunting before you are so certain they'd have your back.
I meant so if I ever needed legal help regarding anything gun related. They offer members legal help. I'm not sure on their contest hunting views.
I generally don't like the NRA. They compromise too much for my liking.That said, I know there are other organizations that would be able to offer legal help in this instance.
-
Yet what organization would view it as a gun rights issue? Most would view it as a hunting issue.
We can run this situation down from the back seat, but until it's our own families and bankrolls on the line, I don't think we can judge those hunters involved.
