tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19938128.post116319256785602399..comments2024-01-22T17:04:11.505-05:00Comments on GROUSERS: formerly Five Smart Guys Who Hunt and Their Generally Smarter Companions: To "Take"...back to huntingJim Tantillohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19938128.post-1163520539790819012006-11-14T11:08:00.000-05:002006-11-14T11:08:00.000-05:00More thought on this..."For hunting, take has a mo...More thought on this...<BR/><BR/>"For hunting, take has a more narrow and clean definition..." sayeth Broadway Josh...<BR/><BR/>New York-<BR/> To hunt—means to pursue, shoot, kill or capture (other than trap) wildlife and includes all lesser acts that disturb or worry wildlife whether or not they result in taking. Hunting also includes all acts to assist another person in taking wildlife.<BR/>To take—means to pursue, shoot, hunt, kill, capture, trap, snare or net wildlife and game—and all lesser acts that disturb or worry wildlife—or to place or use any net or other device commonly used to take wildlife.<BR/><BR/>Maryland-<BR/> Hunting- pursuing, capturing, catching, killing, gigging, trapping, shooting or attempting to pursue, capture, catch, kill, gig, trap or shoot, or in any manner take any bird or mammal into personal possession. (Keith here) It is interesting that in MD bag limits are defined as game birds and animals that can be taken, but the regs do not define TAKE.<BR/><BR/>Pennsylvania-<BR/>Hunt" or "hunting." Any act or furtherance of the taking or killing of any game or wildlife, or any part or product thereof, and includes, but is not limited to, chasing, tracking, calling, pursuing, lying in wait, trapping, shooting at, including shooting at a game or wildlife facsimile, or wounding with any weapon or implement, or using any personal property, including dogs, or the property of others, of any nature, in furtherance of any of these purposes, or aiding, abetting or conspiring with another person in that purpose. --"Take." To harass, pursue, hunt for, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, possess or collect any game or wildlife, including shooting at a facsimile of game or wildlife or attempt to harass, pursue, hunt for, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect any game or wildlife or aiding, abetting or conspiring with another person in that purpose. <BR/><BR/>(Keith here again)There IS no attempt to create a unified take theory. It has already been done, and more's the pity. In law, there really aren't "outliers" like in statistics...there are precedents and case law. The Alaska case hinged on whether or not taking a shot meant "take," and whether additional regulations exempted the guide from the take, hit or miss. <BR/><BR/>If someone can convincingly describe to me, based on the above analagous HUNTING definitions of hunt and take, how it is so simple to dismiss the similarities in ESA and state hunting regs, and associated legal pitfalls and implications, I would greatly appreciate it. Meanwhile, I will continue to contemplate how it is that when I shoot at and miss 6 ducks, I have "taken" my limit. Take that, Sminelli. Think of how many bands I have actually "taken."KGT (aka Cagey)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06763973309807575484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19938128.post-1163284475065800602006-11-11T17:34:00.000-05:002006-11-11T17:34:00.000-05:00If they were two separate discussions, why would t...If they were two separate discussions, why would the Take definition have figured so prominently in Scalia's dissent?<BR/><BR/>Also, the definition of take in many states FOR HUNTING is analagous to the ESA definition. Josh, I just don't buy your distinction argument, but appreciate the Federal loyalty. ;)KGT (aka Cagey)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06763973309807575484noreply@blogger.com