Female Bobcat ready for taxidermy FOR SALE

[brademan76]

Wow, one of the strangest threads I've seen... attempting to sell a non-tanned, roadkill bobcat hide.

[Deserttrecker]

Yeah I really wanted to troll this one but..... I sometimes can act my age

[bonecollector777]

Here you go guys.........

 

A.R.S.§ 17-371(E) states, "heads, horns, antlers, hides, feet, or skin of wildlife lawfully taken, or the treated and mounted specimens thereof, may be possessed, sold and transported at any time..." Wildlife hit by a motor vehicle is not considered to be lawfully taken, with the except of big game meat as prescribed under A.R.S.§ 17-319. This restriction is necessary to protect Arizonas wildlife resources and any change related to it would create a loophole for an individual to possess the parts of wildlife without the necessary evidence of legality (license, tag, seasons, etc). Please keep in mind that in nature, little is ever wasted and there are a host of animals that survive by recycling other animals that have died in the wild or on the roadway.

Just to argue a little more where exactly does it say that an animal killed by a car isn't a legal method of take? There is nothing in the law or regs saying small game hit by a car can't be legally taken. If there is please let me know where it says it. They cover big game very well but absolutely nothing about small game. If I have a license I can kill a bobcat with a rock if I want (and am able) so who cares if one is picked up after being hit by a car?

[bonecollector777]

While I didn't find an answer to my questions above I did see in the regs that in order to sell a bobcat it has to have a cites tag regardless of in state or out. Even on ubskinned carcasses. But besides that I'm still sticking to my guns that you can pick up a bobcat hit on the side of the road.

[el diablo]

 

Here you go guys.........

 

A.R.S.§ 17-371(E) states, "heads, horns, antlers, hides, feet, or skin of wildlife lawfully taken, or the treated and mounted specimens thereof, may be possessed, sold and transported at any time..." Wildlife hit by a motor vehicle is not considered to be lawfully taken, with the except of big game meat as prescribed under A.R.S.§ 17-319. This restriction is necessary to protect Arizonas wildlife resources and any change related to it would create a loophole for an individual to possess the parts of wildlife without the necessary evidence of legality (license, tag, seasons, etc). Please keep in mind that in nature, little is ever wasted and there are a host of animals that survive by recycling other animals that have died in the wild or on the roadway.

Just to argue a little more where exactly does it say that an animal killed by a car isn't a legal method of take? There is nothing in the law or regs saying small game hit by a car can't be legally taken. If there is please let me know where it says it. They cover big game very well but absolutely nothing about small game. If I have a license I can kill a bobcat with a rock if I want (and am able) so who cares if one is picked up after being hit by a car?

Wildlife hit by a motor vehicle is not considered to be lawfully taken,

 

Right out of the post. Second sentence. And a rock is not listed as a legal method of take.

[bonecollector777]

Right out of the sentence that Dale or Heather wrote. Not what the law wrote. Look it up. He quoted what the law says and continued his explanation in his own words.

[bonecollector777]

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/17/00371.htm

Made it easy for you.

[nateNAU]

ARS 17-301

 

A person ((shall not take wildlife)), except aquatic wildlife, or discharge a firearm or shoot any other device ((from a motor vehicle)), including an automobile, aircraft, train or powerboat, or from a sailboat, boat under sail, or a floating object towed by powerboat or sailboat except as expressly permitted by the commission. No person may knowingly discharge any firearm or shoot any other device upon, from, across or into a road or railway.

 

 

I guess as long as you aren't in the car when it hits something you are ok.

[bonecollector777]

Wrong again. That's says you shall not shoot from a motor vehicle.

[bonecollector777]

Example that contradicts the "using a vehicle to take wildlife is illegal" is that if it were true that taking wildlife with a vehicle is illegal then everyone that hits a deer or elk while driving should be cited. Even if it was an accident. They don't care if you "accidentally" shoot a doe, you still get in trouble.

[nateNAU]

Wrong again. That's says you shall not shoot from a motor vehicle.

No. It's says you shall not take wildlife OR discharge a firearm from a vehicle.

[bonecollector777]

 

Wrong again. That's says you shall not shoot from a motor vehicle.

No. It's says you shall not take wildlife OR discharge a firearm from a vehicle.

That's not what it says. But ok

[nateNAU]

Example that contradicts the "using a vehicle to take wildlife is illegal" is that if it were true that taking wildlife with a vehicle is illegal then everyone that hits a deer or elk while driving should be cited. Even if it was an accident. They don't care if you "accidentally" shoot a doe, you still get in trouble.

It is illegal. That's the letter of the law. Now law enforcement has discretion to cite you or not. Most cops that respond to animal strikes are probably dps or sheriff and know little about game law but they still probably give about half of people tickets for "failing to drive to the conditions". Thats what I got when I creamed my elk.

[bonecollector777]

But for the sake of argument let's say that's what the law says I expect everyone that hits an animal in their car whether accident or not to get a ticket for illegal taking of an animal.

[bonecollector777]

And let's go back to letter of the law vs interpretation of the law. Which one of you honestly cares if this guy scooped up a bobcat and wants to sell the thing? What law enforcement officer truly and honestly would get upset if you pick up a dead cat on the side of the road? Everyone coming on here like he committed the ultimate sin of picking up a bobcat that would have rotted on the side of the road and in reality no-one cares that he did it. Just people wanting to be stupid about it.