William Saiff III indicted again

[jimski2]

Deer hunters use similar methods on their property down south with corn spread near their stands. Also fields are planted with deer attraction feed plants to increase their numbers on their property which is also not nature's way. Well there are lot of these persons around here.

[Todd in NY]

Planting food plots is legal in NY. Baiting waterfowl is not.

 

Bill got special treatment that the rest of us wouldn't have gotten if we had been caught doing what he did.

[Lucky13]

Spreading corn near you tree stand is baiting in NYS, and if they get caught, they get ticketed.  Setting your tree stand on the edge of a cornfield is just smart hunting if you have legal access to one.

[Tim Bromund]

On 1/20/2020 at 2:36 PM, garrymny said:

Looks like he is indicted, not convicted. Less presume innocent until proven guilty. This is what I would expect for myself, and anyone else in this country. We've seen too many cases of high profile folks being assumed guilty before proven guilty. Patience. Let the facts be what they may once it comes to trial.

Sent from my moto z3 using Lake Ontario United mobile app

 

well, he has a history, soooooooooo.
 

 

[Trouthunter]

This guy should be locked away He gives us true fishing guides a bad name people who do this should not be rewarded but punished for their crimes enough said

 

[rolmops]

On 2/1/2020 at 11:46 AM, Todd in NY said:

Planting food plots is legal in NY. Baiting waterfowl is not.

 

Bill got special treatment that the rest of us wouldn't have gotten if we had been caught doing what he did.

I thought that what Saiff is suspected of doing really is not much different from other people using an attractant of one sort or other. But I think that the real difference is that the guy who plants a food lot to get that one deer does not make any money on that shot.( Besides, he improves the overall survival of the herd) In fact he makes hunting far more time consuming and expensive. Saiff uses illegal attractants to increase his income which makes him a poacher and his customers become unknowingly partners in crime.

Edited February 2, 2020 by rolmops

[Lucky13]

You are a poacher if you ignore the Conservation laws to harvest your fish and game, whether you make money off it or not..

[Todd in NY]

7 hours ago, rolmops said:

I thought that what Saiff is suspected of doing really is not much different from other people using an attractant of one sort or other. But I think that the real difference is that the the guy who plants a food lot to get that one deer does not make any money on that shot.( Besides, he improves the overall survival of the herd) In fact he makes hunting far more time consuming and expensive. Saiff uses illegal attractants to increase his income which makes him a poacher and his customers become unknowingly partners in crime.

 

I have no idea why NY allows the planting of food plots, but doesn't allow other "baiting" techniques and feeder options. Saiff committed a FEDERAL crime, as a licensed guide, for profit. That is much different than someone who hunts deer over a pile of corn, while still a STATE offense.

 

I don't plant food plots or use bait & other attractants. But to each his own...

[Kingfisher06]

Food plots for deer are suppose to be "wildlife enhancement" strategies. Its like DU projects that build water control structures to flood corn fields. These projects obviously concentrate  game numbers like a bait pile. Concentrating wildlife does not enhance long term fitness of species. Disease spreads easier, etc etc. You can spread corn in your favorite waterfowl hole, but it ceases to be a "baited area" once all the feed has been eaten and 10 days has passed. Did I plant a food plot on my land once my Dad showed interest in hunting post his retirement? Yes, because I cared more about his enjoyment of watching deer and having action as a first time hunter then the long term health of the deer population.  

Edited February 3, 2020 by Kingfisher06

[chowder]

Saiff is a rank opportunist. I hope he gets slammed.

[Kingfisher06]

3 hours ago, chowder said:

Saiff is a rank opportunist. I hope he gets slammed.

 

So do I, in the financial sense and revocation of hunting lic. Should he have his 2nd amendment rights revoked via a felony conviction of this sort-absolutely NOT.

[chinook35]

A felony is a felony. He gave up his rights if he committed the crimes he is accused of   

Edited February 3, 2020 by chinook35

[chowder]

5 minutes ago, Kingfisher06 said:

 

So do I, in the financial sense and revocation of hunting lic. Should he have his 2nd amendment rights revoked via a felony conviction of this sort-absolutely NOT.

I have absolutely no problem with cutting off his access to firearms for a premediated felony He should of thought about those consequences before he committed the crime.

[Kingfisher06]

18 hours ago, chowder said:

I have absolutely no problem with cutting off his access to firearms for a premediated felony He should of thought about those consequences before he committed the crime.

 

What about freedom of speech. He obviously talked up this strategy to the many employees he's had over the years and I'm sure indoctrinated them. Once he's done his proverbial 'time', should the government have the ability to censor him however they please too? Violent felons, dangerous people who hurt other people physically I can reckon the loss of the 2nd. But for him to forever be unable to properly protect his property/family due to a poaching offense, albeit a flagrant poaching offense, still doesn't sit well with me. The only argument I can see for it is the fact guns were used in his crimes, but i am still not persuaded.

[Todd in NY]

I don't see him losing his 2A rights since he probably wasn't the one doing the shooting. But I don't know how guided hunts work because I've never been on a guided hunt before.

[rolmops]

23 minutes ago, Kingfisher06 said:

 

What about freedom of speech. He obviously talked up this strategy to the many employees he's had over the years and I'm sure indoctrinated them. Once he's done his proverbial 'time', should the government have the ability to censor him however they please too? Violent felons, dangerous people who hurt other people physically I can reckon the loss of the 2nd. But for him to forever be unable to properly protect his property/family due to a poaching offense, albeit a flagrant poaching offense, still doesn't sit well with me. The only argument I can see for it is the fact guns were used in his crimes, but i am still not persuaded.

I think that he carefully picked the people he worked with. They were either ignorant of the laws or did not respect them. Besides, it is not illegal to throw a bucket of corn in the water and go home.

As for properly protecting his family. Committing crimes that can send you to jail thereby leaving your family to fend for themselves does not sound like protecting ones family. Honest honorable people have the privilege of carrying arms. those who are neither honest nor honorable do not deserve that privilege.

[Kingfisher06]

1 minute ago, rolmops said:

I think that he carefully picked the people he worked with. They were either ignorant of the laws or did not respect them. Besides, it is not illegal to throw a bucket of corn in the water and go home.

As for properly protecting his family. Committing crimes that can send you to jail thereby leaving your family to fend for themselves does not sound like protecting ones family. Honest honorable people have the privilege of carrying arms. those who are neither honest nor honorable do not deserve that privilege.

 

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege it is a fundamental right. An honest, honorable person would not portray it any other way. 

[chowder]

34 minutes ago, Kingfisher06 said:

 

What about freedom of speech. He obviously talked up this strategy to the many employees he's had over the years and I'm sure indoctrinated them. Once he's done his proverbial 'time', should the government have the ability to censor him however they please too? Violent felons, dangerous people who hurt other people physically I can reckon the loss of the 2nd. But for him to forever be unable to properly protect his property/family due to a poaching offense, albeit a flagrant poaching offense, still doesn't sit well with me. The only argument I can see for it is the fact guns were used in his crimes, but i am still not persuaded.

 Talking about 'losing the right to protect family' is really kinda disingenuous isn't it. I mean seriously, let's not turn this into some kind of last of the Mohegans scenario. Frankly, I don't trust Joe blow's ability to maintain sight picture,fire control, and their family's safety at the same time anyway.

[Sk8man]

The loss of his right to own and/or use a gun has more to do with the legal nature of the offense than anything else. Convicted felons are prohibited from possessing, owning or otherwise having contact with conventional firearms. so basically it is much like the forfeiture of the voting right of a felon as well. Both are guaranteed by the Constitution /Bill of Rights and subject to specific limitations (legal constraints) set forth by individual states.

[bandrus1]

51 minutes ago, Kingfisher06 said:

 

What about freedom of speech. He obviously talked up this strategy to the many employees he's had over the years and I'm sure indoctrinated them. Once he's done his proverbial 'time', should the government have the ability to censor him however they please too? Violent felons, dangerous people who hurt other people physically I can reckon the loss of the 2nd. But for him to forever be unable to properly protect his property/family due to a poaching offense, albeit a flagrant poaching offense, still doesn't sit well with me. The only argument I can see for it is the fact guns were used in his crimes, but i am still not persuaded.

You are saying somebody who knowingly disobeyed the law multiple times after given a warning is not dangerous? 

 

He has no respect for the rule of law and if you want to talk about the Constitution, that is what is fundamental.

[Kingfisher06]

4 minutes ago, bandrus1 said:

You are saying somebody who knowingly disobeyed the law multiple times after given a warning is not dangerous? 

 

He has no respect for the rule of law and if you want to talk about the Constitution, that is what is fundamental.

Fair enough.

 

I don't want to be confused for someone who is sticking up for this a-hole. 

 

He is aggressive and Ive heard many a story about his bullying tactics.

 

I'll recant this opinion in this particular situation, but my point that some crimes elevating to the felony level, and the subsequent loss of rights guaranteed by the Constitution doesn't always sit well with me.  

[chinook35]

 Talking about 'losing the right to protect family' is really kinda disingenuous isn't it. I mean seriously, let's not turn this into some kind of last of the Mohegans scenario. Frankly, I don't trust Joe blow's ability to maintain sight picture,fire control, and their family's safety at the same time anyway.

That’s why I have a 12 gage loaded with magnum 000 buck in my closet. Don’t have to be Annie Oakley with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[BSmaster]

Amazing how these threads turn political.  I mean really - I want a plastic straw.

 

Guy is unethical - deserves punishment afforded to him by law and lets stop there.  Taking it further just offends someone else.

[bandrus1]

8 minutes ago, BSmaster said:

Amazing how these threads turn political.  I mean really - I want a plastic straw.

 

Guy is unethical - deserves punishment afforded to him by law and lets stop there.  Taking it further just offends someone else.

 

 

What part is political? 

[chowder]

2 minutes ago, bandrus1 said:

 

 

What part is political? 

I couldn't figure that out either but all you have to do is mouth the words " 2nd amendment" and somebody, somewhere is going to go postal.