U.s vs. Stevens

[Chris Shelton]

#7091

Hey everyone there is a very important supreme court case that everyone should know about. It involves every single one of us in some way or another. This case is to be hear before the us supreme court this fall. Stevens is a film maker that did a bear hunt using dogs, he made a documentary on pitbulls and there practical use for hunting! Everything in his film was completely legitamate, however his DVD was sold in a state where bear hunting is illegal with dogs! Stevens was charged with a felony under Section 48 of Title 18, United States code! It says that, “Whoever knowingly creates, sells or pocesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both” This statue defines a depiction as “any photograph, motion picture, video recording, electronic image or sound recording of cunduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed”.

The reason he is being charged is becasue at the end of this statute it says that you can not sell this depiction in a state where the action is illegal by either federal or state law. This is actually a big deal, our magazines are in trouble if this guy gets nailed. American Hunter magazine could be in this boat for printing a article on dove hunting that is sold in New York state where there is no dove season. Traditional bowhunter itself could be in trouble as well, for printing articles on stone heads, beacuse they are illegal in many states!?(not that I am complaining, the law is rediculous) There is another catch in the statute, it says that this law does not apply if the depiction has some serious religious, scientific, eduactional, journalistic, historical or artistic value. Now definatly all of us would consider our magazines like traditional bowhunter as most of those, but will the federal government? Idk, thought it was important!

[Todd Smith]

#58687

Thanks! Good point.

todd

[Clay Hayes]

#59200

I see the point you’re trying to make. I can also imagin what he’s using the pits for. If he’s using them in the way I’m thinking(I can’t think of anything they’d be usefull for other than catch dogs), he’s doing a disservice to all hound hunters.

Call me a softy, but I’d never want to see a bear with two pit’s hanging off him.

But, I haven’t seen the vid so I can’t really say much.

ch

[Chris Shelton]

#59999

Not sure, I havent seen it before either, I suppose we will just have to wait and see what happeneds, I just read a little follow up on it in American hunter magazine and now the president of the humane society of north america is involved!? And that makes me alittle nervous, those guys always seem to have a hidden agenda, I still am on the fence of weather or not this whole deal was his fault, I dont know if it is the filmmaker who decides where his production is sold?

[Hiram]

#60223

The question is purly one of legality.
The pedigree should not be a topic.
I love all dogs whether hounds or Pits.
They all came from one animal, The wolf!
Pits are wonderful animals! They have only one person to accuse of any mis-trust or misuse of any animal. It must be understood that “Mans best friend” is nurtured along much like a child. How they are raised and trained depicts thier personality!If they are used to exploit or abuse is dependant upon the owner.
If the law was followed and adhered to: The guy will be expunged. Court adjudications do however tend to be more liberal in areas where the culture of hunting is not understood by those in urban areas. Education and diplomacy by the level headed in our beloved “Hunting life” must be defended and extended to those who do not understand either by “Good stewardship and diplomacy” or by legal representation. Hopefully the former.

[johnny2]

#21193

I agree with Hiram, it’s not the breed it’s the owners. I also agree with Clay, pit bulls are typically used as catch dogs and I don’t care to see a bear ran to exhaustion with a couple of pits hanging on either end.

This guy is most likely just promoting his style but he has opened the flood gates of criticism and judgement on all of us(we are all lumped together in the eyes of the general public). First he chose a hunting method that divides even hunters then he chose a breed that inspires mixed feelings even among dog owners. Two controversial subjects thrown together are sure to cause problems, add the marketing of the act and the precedent of the law and abracadabra, instant firestorm.

I really don’t understand, if his methods are legal(even if controversial) why draw attention to them(especially if controversial)? Is he trying to sell something? Is he trying to promote this method to enrich everyones tool box of effective tactics?

While I personally find his methods appalling( I haven’t seen the film, this is based on what I’ve read, if I’m wrong about it I’ll retract) I don’t agree with the letter of the law, I do however agree with the spirit. Perhaps a little forethought(or maybe a friend of his saying “Hey man, maybe you shouldn’t be selling this”) would have saved us all the trouble of having to defend our lifestyle yet again.

[Chris Shelton]

#21254

Okay you guys are looking at this the wrong way!? You all are looking at it like the Humane Society of North America is looking at it, which is the same way I initially looked at it. The HSNA have jumped on board fighting this case as a case of animal cruelty. That is not why the supreme court is seeing the case. They are looking at weather another federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. The law in question is in lamens terms-it is illegal to sell a product that depicts a animal dying in a state where the method of the animal dying is illegal there. So he is not on trial because he has a DVD using pit bulls, he is on trial because his DVD on how to hunt with pit bulls is sold in New York where hunting with dogs is illegal. Now if we think long and hard about this, which I have, that would outlaw the selling of a traditional bowhunter magazine when there are articles about hunting with a stone broadhead in it because that is illegal in my state. Or outlawing the sale of a North American Hunter magazine in New york with a article on dove hunting because the state has no dove season!? I hope that the supreme court can see what a 18 year old boy can see, that law directly violates our freedom of the press, expression, and freedom of the speech! I agree with you guys! I dont even see the point? There are several other ways to hunt bears! The DVD was primarily about the dogs history, with some added detail about how they are used to hunt. Anyway, hope this post cleared some air!?

[Hiram]

#21308

So, it”s a 1st ammendment challenge for the media?

[johnny2]

#21318

I understand GTA, it is a scary situation. Everything hinges on a politicians view of animal cruelty and freedom of expression.

My point is why draw the ire of the Humane Society or any other organizations(or mainstream America) with such a controversial subject and product for sale? Maybe we need to police our ranks a little tighter.

Most Americans agree with fair chase hunting and weapons ownership but any pursuit by dogs is looked on by some as unfair, pit bulls with their negative press add more problems. Right or wrong a lot of folks see things this way. It seems the farther you get from simple one on one pursuit of prey the more support you shave off. Why risk it?

Had the subject matter been doves with a shotgun or bear with a bow I don’t believe he would have recieved as much negative attention. Hopefully we can all learn something from this.

[Chris Shelton]

#21334

It really shouldnt and doesnt matter what the anit hunters think, or what the pro hunters think! The only opinion that really matters in this case are that of the 7 individuals that sit upon there high chair in the supreme court! THe bottom line is that no matter how you feel about dog hunting, the real question here is this. Why is some hunter being punished for making a video about pitbulls when there are filmmakers making movies about legalizing marijuana? Last time I checked marijuana is illegal in almost all 50 states? Plus that and I dont think it is the producers fault that his product was sold in New York? Wouldnt that be the middle mans fault? Shouldnt he be on trial for selling the DVD? I dont know, the supreme court is hearing it soon and they will come to a decision!

[johnny2]

#21365

Good points. Nothin in this ol world is fair. Let’s just hope for the best.

I’m just sayin’ somebody blew the whistle on em to get to this point.

I swear GTA, you seem more mature and insightful with every message you post. I’m impressed.:o Now don’t let it go to your head, you’re still only 18:D

[Author]

Posts