Today in Fascism

Did you read the article?
Poaching and baiting are not the same.
The guides didn't poach the bear.
The guides placed bait to attract the bear. Legal in parts of the country.
Jr. had a valid tag and killed the bear that the guides put him on.
Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings said the hunter in the case “was actually a victim..."
 
Poaching and baiting are not the same.
The guides didn't poach the bear.
The guides placed bait to attract the bear. Legal in parts of the country.
Jr. had a valid tag and killed the bear that the guides put him on.
Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings said the hunter in the case “was actually a victim..."

Baiting is included in the definition of poaching.

For example --

"The DEFINITION of the word "poach" is: "to take (game or fish) by illegal means."

As baiting is currently illegal in the LP, if you bait, you are "taking game by illegal means" and, therefore, you are a poacher. End of story."


 
Last edited:
If you place bait and don't kill an animal - you have no poaching.
I'd bet most poaching does NOT involve bait.
The practice of baiting is treated differently in different states. In Utah, it is illegal poaching to hunt over bait.

Some poaching DOES involve bait.
 
The practice of baiting is treated differently in different states. In Utah, it is illegal poaching to hunt over bait.

Some poaching DOES involve bait.
I never said otherwise.
If you dont kill an animal there is no poaching
If a guide places bait and puts you on a baited animal and you have no knowledge of the baiting...see the original article.
Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings said the hunter in the case “was actually a victim..."
 
I never said otherwise.
If you dont kill an animal there is no poaching
If a guide places bait and puts you on a baited animal and you have no knowledge of the baiting...see the original article.
Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings said the hunter in the case “was actually a victim..."

The loyal Republican DA seems to be cutting Jr. a little slack there. See (2)(b) and (2)(c) below --

Utah Code Page 1

Effective 5/5/2021
23-16-11 Big game baiting prohibited.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) (i) "Bait" means intentionally placing food or nutrient substances to manipulate the behavior of wildlife for the purpose of taking or attempting to take big game.
(ii) "Bait" does not include:
(A) the use of salt, mineral blocks, or other commonly used types of livestock supplements placed in the field by agricultural producers for normal agricultural purposes; or
(B) standing crops, natural vegetation, harvested croplands, or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation, or normal soil stabilization practice.
(b) "Baited area" means all land within a 50-yard radius of the site where bait is placed, including the site where bait is placed.
(2) Unless authorized by a certificate of registration, it is unlawful to:
(a) bait big game;
(b) take big game in a baited area; or
(c) take big game that has been lured to or is traveling from a baited area.
(3) The division may only issue a certificate of registration to allow for the baiting of big game if the division determines that baiting is necessary to alleviate substantial big game depredation on cultivated crops or to facilitate the removal of deer causing property damage within cities or towns. Enacted by Chapter 177, 2021 General Session

 
Last edited:
The loyal Republican DA seems to be cutting Jr. a little slack there. See (2)(b) and (2)(c) below --

Utah Code Page 1

Effective 5/5/2021
23-16-11 Big game baiting prohibited.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) (i) "Bait" means intentionally placing food or nutrient substances to manipulate the behavior of wildlife for the purpose of taking or attempting to take big game.
(ii) "Bait" does not include:
(A) the use of salt, mineral blocks, or other commonly used types of livestock supplements placed in the field by agricultural producers for normal agricultural purposes; or
(B) standing crops, natural vegetation, harvested croplands, or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation, or normal soil stabilization practice.
(b) "Baited area" means all land within a 50-yard radius of the site where bait is placed, including the site where bait is placed.
(2) Unless authorized by a certificate of registration, it is unlawful to:
(a) bait big game;
(b) take big game in a baited area; or
(c) take big game that has been lured to or is traveling from a baited area.
(3) The division may only issue a certificate of registration to allow for the baiting of big game if the division determines that baiting is necessary to alleviate substantial big game depredation on cultivated crops or to facilitate the removal of deer causing property damage within cities or towns. Enacted by Chapter 177, 2021 General Session

Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings said the hunter in the case “was actually a victim..."
The hunter in this case is Donald Trump Jr...
Trump Jr was not charged, has not been charged and won't be charged as he didn't place any bait.
He did in fact shoot and kill a bear, in 2018. The law you cite was passed 3 years later....
 
Last edited:
S
Tesla actually makes and sells things and the validity of its stock price can be determined by classic investment analysis. Cryptocurrency inflated prices are just full of hot air.
So have you figured out what Ether and Cardano do yet? After all you are a self proclaimed cryptologist..

And speaking of hot air.. you definitely are the expert in that area.
 
Tesla actually makes and sells things and the validity of its stock price can be determined by classic investment analysis. Cryptocurrency inflated prices are just full of hot air.
Still nothing crypt keeper?

Ether, Cardano?

What about The Sand Box? Cronos? Polkadot?

And your "classic investment analysis "..has it ever been WRONG?
 
My clueless what?
The nature of the crypto-market is often compared to the course of the Tulip Mania during the Dutch Golden Age. However, there are some fundamental differences that invalidate this comparison.

Tulip Mania was a speculative price bubble in the Netherlands during the 1600s, hardly comparable to a world wide tech available to anyone. People flocked to buy futures contracts for tulips, sometimes even trading tulip bulbs up to 10x per day.

Merchants from all around Europe, not the world, flocked to buy up tulips. Prices skyrocketed in a period of days. The market then did what all markets do — it corrected itself. The necessary rebound was for everything to come crashing down.

People lost the equivalent of millions of dollars overnight, and the event was marked in history as a cautionary tale to those engaging in investments based on wild speculation.

Nowadays, tulip mania is compared to the droves of people who joined in on the crypto-craze. During the end of 2017, Google searches for terms “tulip mania” and “tulip fever” sky-rocketed towards the peak of the hype.

There are probably some historical inaccuracies about the extent of the Mania (most tulip traders were aristocrats and merchant-class, not common folk), but in any case, it is no longer a fair or interesting comparison to the world of crypto. It is misguided.

At the heights of the bubble in early 2018, it would have been safe to classify the phenomenon as a “mania.” But the dust has settled, and the blockchain industry continues to thrive. Those who continue to call it a speculative bubble today are missing the bigger picture. While there are still people who hope to get rich through crypto, many amateur crypto traders either lost money and quit, or have realized that crypto is a much longer-term game.

Before you see sustained growth, you need what one startup founder describes as the “1000 Flowers Blooming” stage of an industry. It implies there are many ideas, projects, and businesses that are required to jumpstart the whole ecosystem. After a while, most of the flowers are revealed to be weeds. But a few of them turn out to be roses, and those are the ones we hope to pick.

In the 1600s, the Tulip Mania was a small blip of economic hubris, but it was also an indicator of a huge emerging market for the Netherlands. Today, the Netherlands commands 50% of the $10 billion global market in cut flowers. In other words, bubbles are not an inherently bad thing — they are a necessary part of growth. From this perspective, the dot-com bust is also a fair comparison. It is reminiscent of Pets.com — the darling of the Internet boom. It failed but online pet stores have grown into one of the largest e-commerce sectors.


Be it Tulip Mania, internet IPOs or blockchain ICOs, throughout the 300-year history of organized financial markets, investors have found objects of speculative excess. Too much money is being thrown at fake or nonviable ICOs, but others will own their markets one day. I didn’t drink the Internet bubble kool-aid (maybe you did) but I bet you certainly would have liked to have sniffed those tulips!
 
The nature of the crypto-market is often compared to the course of the Tulip Mania during the Dutch Golden Age. However, there are some fundamental differences that invalidate this comparison.

Tulip Mania was a speculative price bubble in the Netherlands during the 1600s, hardly comparable to a world wide tech available to anyone. People flocked to buy futures contracts for tulips, sometimes even trading tulip bulbs up to 10x per day.

Merchants from all around Europe, not the world, flocked to buy up tulips. Prices skyrocketed in a period of days. The market then did what all markets do — it corrected itself. The necessary rebound was for everything to come crashing down.

People lost the equivalent of millions of dollars overnight, and the event was marked in history as a cautionary tale to those engaging in investments based on wild speculation.

Nowadays, tulip mania is compared to the droves of people who joined in on the crypto-craze. During the end of 2017, Google searches for terms “tulip mania” and “tulip fever” sky-rocketed towards the peak of the hype.

There are probably some historical inaccuracies about the extent of the Mania (most tulip traders were aristocrats and merchant-class, not common folk), but in any case, it is no longer a fair or interesting comparison to the world of crypto. It is misguided.

At the heights of the bubble in early 2018, it would have been safe to classify the phenomenon as a “mania.” But the dust has settled, and the blockchain industry continues to thrive. Those who continue to call it a speculative bubble today are missing the bigger picture. While there are still people who hope to get rich through crypto, many amateur crypto traders either lost money and quit, or have realized that crypto is a much longer-term game.

Before you see sustained growth, you need what one startup founder describes as the “1000 Flowers Blooming” stage of an industry. It implies there are many ideas, projects, and businesses that are required to jumpstart the whole ecosystem. After a while, most of the flowers are revealed to be weeds. But a few of them turn out to be roses, and those are the ones we hope to pick.

In the 1600s, the Tulip Mania was a small blip of economic hubris, but it was also an indicator of a huge emerging market for the Netherlands. Today, the Netherlands commands 50% of the $10 billion global market in cut flowers. In other words, bubbles are not an inherently bad thing — they are a necessary part of growth. From this perspective, the dot-com bust is also a fair comparison. It is reminiscent of Pets.com — the darling of the Internet boom. It failed but online pet stores have grown into one of the largest e-commerce sectors.


Be it Tulip Mania, internet IPOs or blockchain ICOs, throughout the 300-year history of organized financial markets, investors have found objects of speculative excess. Too much money is being thrown at fake or nonviable ICOs, but others will own their markets one day. I didn’t drink the Internet bubble kool-aid (maybe you did) but I bet you certainly would have liked to have sniffed those tulips!

That article is over three years old.

 
Back
Top