Okanagan grouse hunter killed

Discussion in 'Cast & Blast' started by martyg, Sep 3, 2013.

  1. martyg

    martyg Active Member

  2. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    Two thoughts come to mind:

    1) he came across an illegal grow operation
    2) don't road hunt

    A messed up story none the less and I hope they catch the perp.
  3. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Pontiac Ridge is known for recluses and misanthropes. You don't go there without an invitation.

    Chesaw town is different, the tavern serves ice cold beer with a smile...
  4. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    I thought WA legalized this shit. We're going out for grouse today, but we're all carrying a little more than just scatterguns.
    Blake Harmon likes this.
  5. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    Legal in small amounts but not for large scale distribution to neighboring states. Illegal growing in this state will only get larger (look at B.C.'s history of grow ops and trafficking).

    I carry a Springfield XD .45 with an additional 13 round mag whenever I'm in the grouse woods. With wolves and cougars that could go after the dogs and such its a good backup.

    In the case of this grouse hunter it doesn't sound like they ever saw the shooter so they either new him or it was a shot from afar. Two legged creatures are far more scary, give me wolves and cougars any day.
  6. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    Double post
  7. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    That is a sad story regardless of how it unfolded. If it does turn out to be related to a drug operation, I'm thinking we consider bringing back the old town hunt...meet up for coffee and d-nuts, then form a line and start covering some turf. In addition to the standard hardware, backpacks full of Weed-B-Gone ;).
    Alex MacDonald likes this.
  8. scottr

    scottr Active Member

  9. scottr

    scottr Active Member

  10. Olive bugger

    Olive bugger Active Member

    Regardless of your feelings on the subject, I just do not believe that the Mary Jane law that the voters passed will have a good outcome, and that we will ever see any of that TAX money go toward education. JMO.
  11. martyg

    martyg Active Member

    Not to hijack my own thread, but...

    Part of the outcome is that dealers are already leaving WA for states like NY because the street value of weed has plummeted since medical marijuana came on-line. When recreational weed is available for distribution it will put the nail in that coffin. The profit incentive just isn't there any more.

    The weed that is grown in the large outdoor grows is often exported. That won't likely be impacted. WA is an ideal place to grow it because we have so much rural land. However it wouldn't be sold to WA locals - because most of our weed is grown hydroponically in very controlled settings by very smart people who know how to cultivate the best bud.
    triploidjunkie likes this.
  12. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Since the thread owner open the crack, I agree with OB. Just yesterday morning, I'm listening to a state tax paid for advertisement/campaign to get control on the escalating drug use problems. So on the one hand we allow use of drugs by legalizing m-jane and on the other we spend tax money (and lots of it I suspect) dealing with its consequence. You simply cannot make this shit up.... utterly ridiculous.

    And even if the dealers are moving out (and I'd love to see the facts that back that up), that does not mean the growers will too.
  13. tkww

    tkww Member

    Oh, my, where to even start with a steaming pile like this one? Well, let's start with the "consequences" of MJ. And what are they, exactly? 2nd, we already have lots of legal drugs. Walk up and down the isle of any pharmacy. And when you're done, go check out the alcohol section of any store. And don't forget to pick up some chew or some smokes on the way out the door. MJ is one of the least harmful drugs out there, far less harmful than a great many number of drugs already available. But somehow, people can't get it through their thick skulls that there is a difference between MJ and, say, herion or meth. You know, drugs that have actual societal consequences.
    Eyejuggler and triploidjunkie like this.
  14. martyg

    martyg Active Member

    X2. And not to hijack my own thread...

    I reflect on all of the parties that I have attended - and they are usually connected with skiing or paddling. The guy or gal who has been super quiet all day and is drinking heavily inevitably gets in to fights and has to be subdued and / or the gal starts stripping (that part is OK), while the group that is taking a few draws is relaxed in a corner... talking about how awesome the day was.

    I see very little difference between drinking a few glasses of wine in the evening to chill or taking a few draws. Drinking wine motivates me to spend money, so that is good for our GDP. While with a little weed and I am on the floor stretching and bring more range of motion to those three ruptured discs in my back. I wake up in the AM totally refreshed and headed out the door for a trail run.

    I believe in personal freedom, but also accepting consequences for one's actions. No doubt that some bad stuff has happened when people are stoned, but bad stuff could have also happened with drinking, texting while driving, etc. IMO it is all about personal freedoms, and the maturity to behave responsibly.
    triploidjunkie and tkww like this.
  15. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    If you talk with a cop, you'll hear that he's never busted anyone on hard drugs who didn't start by smoking dope. Go for it if that's what you want, but leave me out of it. I saw plenty of stoners paying the consequences in the jungle years ago. It's not welcome on my property.
  16. tkww

    tkww Member

    And if you dig a little deeper, you'll find they probably all had hard liquor before too. And beer before that. And (usually breast) milk before that. Should they all be illegal too, as gateway substances?

    Alas, if only we lived in the land of the free.

    Really? It was the weed that got them in trouble in the jungle? And the heroin was....what exactly? Was it necessary to soothe their nerves after one too many hits of thai stick?

    I fully support your right to stipulate that. I just wish the freedom of the opposite--welcome on mine--was as much a reality.
    triploidjunkie likes this.
  17. zen leecher aka bill w

    zen leecher aka bill w born to work, forced to fish

    Just because MJ is legal that still won't help much with work related drug tests especially with federal jobs or jobs that have federal contracts.

    I'm in line with Alex on this. Nothing good will come from drug use.
  18. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    TKWW-give me a fucking break. First I'm taking some real umbrage to your land of the free comment. I, and my brothers, put our asses on the line almost 450 combat days in two tours so you're allowed to spew that shit. I left a lot of my brothers on that fucking wall, and I NEVER saw any heroin use there, either. You did? You were there? Or are you just going by what some shithead told you was "going on". Dope didn't get the draftees in trouble, it got them dead. I don't give a rat's ass if they "started" with breast milk. The point is, that they got into drugs with weed. And its still illegal in every country on the planet; some just turn a blind eye to it.

    As far as who gets to come on my property, I'm glad you "support" my right to say who, but be clear: I don't "stipulate", I enforce. And my targeting envelope opens at around a thousand meters, maybe a little more depending on how conditions influence 180 grains of Hornaday SST BTHP match at 3200fps.
  19. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    There is a big difference between recreational drugs and drugs developed to remedy health related problems. Both can lead to problems if misused. I have no issue with the use of marijuana prescribed by a doctor for health related benefit. My point is that there is major hypocrisy in a society that makes it legal to use drugs for non-medical use while also spending tax money telling people not to use them and incurring costs for treatment of those that do. What's next legalized paint sniffing? It sends the wrong message and will only increase the likelihood more start toking and end up as problem users.

    Lastly, your comments and position on this are helping me understand why you have problems discerning the difference between a "steaming pile" and fact based statements.

    Now back to the original thread...
  20. tkww

    tkww Member

    Well so far so good, so long as you understand that Mary is the former and not the latter, including all of the strains available today. The "medical" purposes and strains available for "medical" purposes are ex post facto of the recreational use. If you think there's something available today--strain or potency-wise--because of the "medical" community that wasn't available before the widespread passages of medicinal pot, you are mistaken.

    Oh boy. And here we go again. So it's completely ridiculous that tobacco is legal too, right? And alcohol? Talk about hypocrisy. Our societal stance on tobacco can't hold a candle to the stance on pot. But more to the point: can you point me to the treatment costs for using marijuana, please? Really, I'm dying to know. (And no, $2.99 for some fritos at the corner store doesn't count. I'm talking about actual treatment costs for smoking weed.)

    If you want to get right down to it, in the land of the free, in a country founded with the intention of liberty and pursuit of happiness for it's residents, frankly it all ought to be legal.

    Oh, the "problem users." And how do you define those? Now we're starting to get to the fun part.

    Medical treatment for marijuana use, and I'm the one have trouble discerning facts?