This page has been moved to http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Newshound at its new location: www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound.
Judge Orders Poacher to Pay PETA
In a judgment equally unprecedented and ludicrous, a Colorado district judge yesterday ruled that a convicted game law violator be required to donate $500 to a radical animal rights organization as part of his sentence.
Craig Miller, 44, of Little Canada, Minn., pleaded guilty before District Judge Chuck Buss in Aspen Monday to killing a black bear out of season, wanton waste of game meat, and illegal use of bait. As part of his plea agreement, prosecutors dropped a felony charge of willful destruction of big-game wildlife.
Buss sentenced Miller to two years of unsupervised probation, loss of hunting privileges for five years, and fines of $5,300.
Then, the judge added a zinger to Miller’s sentence.
In what today’s Aspen Times refers to as “an unusual requirement,” Judge Buss ruled that Miller donate $500 to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in lieu of community service.
“Unusual requirement??” Hell, it's quite possibly the most absurd judgment ever handed down in a court case involving a poaching violation.
To offer the radical, publicity-seeking nutjobs at PETA an ounce of legitimacy as part of a wildlife-related court ruling is downright insane!
Somebody needs to collar the honorable Judge Buss and take him to school about the difference between wildlife conservation and radical animal rights’ agendas.
We’re all for slapping despicable game law violators with the appropriate punitive action, but this is ridiculous.
There goes my blood pressure. I haven’t been able to settle down since reading the report this morning.
I’m interested to hear what the Newshound faithful think about this one.
This judge is nuts. The poacher should be penalized to the full extent but give to peta. Sounds like that is or should be illegal. Im flabbergasted, almost speechless. I cant even type anymore!!!!!
Posted by: Greg | October 16, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Absolutely ludicrus (sp) or however you spell it!
Bubba
Posted by: Bubba | October 16, 2007 at 12:14 PM
I'd be interested to see whether the judge is a PETA member. I'm all for punishing law breakers but to force someone to give to an organization like this is crazy. Of course it could have been worse. He could have forced him to spend time working with PETA. $500 is definitely worth avoiding that.
Posted by: Chris H. | October 16, 2007 at 01:06 PM
I think this may very well be illegal. This judge has no right to donate court funds to PETA or any other entity other than retribution to a harmed party or the judicial system.
Giving the money to PETA isn't any different than if he decided to start making people pay to his wife, other relative or to the sheriff of Notingham.
Posted by: Jack Ryan | October 16, 2007 at 05:13 PM
Jack: Thanks for weighing in. The judge’s choice of the $500 PETA contribution was discretionary and in lieu of community service. I believe he was within his legal bounds to make that determination. That said, his actions leave little doubt of his prejudice on animal and wildlife issues. At the very least, the Colorado DOW or a national or state sportsmen’s organization should step forward and see to it he never presides over another case involving hunting as long as he serves as a judge...JR
Posted by: JR | October 16, 2007 at 07:05 PM
The judge should be educated regarding PeTA's radical animal rights terrorism history and associations. That $500. should have gone to a group that actually helps wildlife - not one bent on severing all human contact with the rest of creation.
Posted by: Joan | October 17, 2007 at 02:21 AM
While the poacher should definitely have to pay, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. What this does bring to light, as well, is that PETA's endless advertising bombardments are having an effect on the public consciousness.
If the judge isn't an activist himself, his sentence shows that he perceives PETA to be a legitimate charitable organization.
Sportsmen and women can shake their heads at the insanity of the advertising, but what are our largest organizations (DU, IGFA, etc) doing to offset the campaigns that are slowly, but surely, having an effect on the public?
Posted by: Jon Clausen | October 17, 2007 at 10:27 AM
If I were him, I think I'd use the Patriot Act to full advantage and claim that I wouldn't want to fund domestic terrorism and refuse to pay, offering instead to donate it to the international game wardens association, hunter education or some other group.
Posted by: Outdoor Jester | October 17, 2007 at 12:31 PM
I don't know what was in the judges mind, but there is some ingenuity to this....
Think about it. This guy gets caught poaching, and I don't know the circumstances, but it looks like it was a one time deal. (He's from MN, the act was done in CO) He may be just an average hunter who got greedy.
Anyway, not only does he lose hunting privileges and have to pay a fine, but on top of that he ends up having to donate to PETA! What a kick in the teeth! If that isn't a preventative measure, I don't know what is. Having to give money to an organization like that! :-P On top of that, his family, friends, hunting buds, and even complete strangers are going to be giving him grief for the act he did AND being a PETA supporter. The guy might as well tape the letter "L" to his forehead.
As a preventative measure... not much will deter your committed poacher, but your average hunter, who is considering a little greed, will definitely think twice. I know I would! If it were me, any thought of doing something like this would go completely out the window. What animal out there is worth that! Being labeled as a poacher AND donating to an org that is totally against everything you stand for?
Posted by: Sherrill Philip Neese | October 17, 2007 at 05:07 PM
Made me sick when I read it. Poachers are idiots and deserve whatever punishment that is dished out to them. However, putting $500 dollars in PETA's purse is simply WRONG and is punishing ALL legitimate hunters and not just this dumb poacher.
Posted by: darrell | October 17, 2007 at 06:14 PM
It sounds like the judge is a willing accomplice to these nut jobs.
Posted by: Will Becker | October 17, 2007 at 09:44 PM
yeah but once they get his name as a more than $50 contributor they will hound him for years. A one time punishment, his name on their donor list, multiple reminders of his donation per year. Hell they might even send him their newsletter for 10 years. Never poach, especially in someone elses state.
Posted by: dan | October 18, 2007 at 11:53 AM
This judge is like most elected officials, he does not have a frekin clue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: bman | October 18, 2007 at 07:47 PM
Maybe it's ludicrous, but think about it...would it stop you from breaking the law again?
I know I'm playing devil's advocate, but it will probably work...
Posted by: deerPhD | October 18, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Not only is this nuts but doesn't it fall in to the category of supporting known terrorist organizations? I believe that under the current guidelines set forth by the Bush administration, PETA is not only eligible for the terrorist status but are actually listed as such by the FBI. I might be wrong on that last point but I have read that in publications of fairly recent past.
Posted by: Tom | October 19, 2007 at 09:40 AM