Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
A family of three from Marshfield, Massachusetts, could face criminal charges. Their crime? Harassing duck hunters. Police Chief Phil Tavares said his department is seeking a clerk magistrate hearing in order “to determine whether there is probable cause to charge the family members with three counts of hunter interference and two counts of threatening to commit a crime.”
Julie Carreiro said that her family was awakened very early one October morning this fall by the sound of gunfire. She, her husband, and their son ran outside. They found hunters on conservation land that abuts their property. The hunters reportedly told police that the Carreiros had threatened them with physical harm if they didn’t leave. Chief Tavares said, “Members of the family began to use air horns to possibly attempt to scare away the water fowl, which is interference with a hunter.”
Carreiro, who has lived on her property since 1964, said that no one in her family had ever heard or seen hunters on the conservation land until last year. She told CBS News what happened when her family first encountered hunters near their property last year: “The bird shot was raining down on us and we were scared for our lives. We went running into the house ducking for cover.” She claimed that after her family called the police to complain about the hunters, the only thing police did was to “tell the hunters not to aim toward the house…”
Wildlands Trust of Southeastern Massachusetts owns the conservation land that abuts the Carreiro’s property. Public recreation is allowed on the trust’s land—but no hunting is permitted there. According to reports, even though hunting is not allowed on the land—it had not been posted with “no hunting” signs.
Tavares reportedly said that the hunters’ encounter with the Carreiro family is illustrative of “an ongoing, seasonal dispute between hunters trying to exercise their right to hunt off Careswell Street and neighbors who feel their privacy and safety are being violated during water fowl hunting season.”
Tavares wants the court to determine if this was a legal hunt. He said, “You can only hunt on property that’s owned by the Wild Land Trust by permit. They have never issued a permit to hunt there.” He said that there was, however, a “loophole” in the law because no “no hunting” signs had been posted there. Tavares continued, “If it is not posted ‘no hunting’ it’s not enforceable. The hunters have no notice they are not supposed to be there, and to their best belief they were hunting legally.”
Tavares, who comes from a family of hunters, told the Patriot Ledger that “it’s a balancing act between upholding rights and maintaining public safety.” He added, “When I was a kid, we managed to hunt without bothering anyone, but if you’re in a park or playground, even if you’re 500 feet away, it could be a public safety issue. Things that are lawful can still be troublesome and disturbing.”
Note: “The trust has since given authority for the land to be posted, so it is now illegal and enforceable.” (Patriot Ledger)
Even though there weren’t any “no hunting” restrictions posted on the conservation land—the hunters evidently hadn’t been issued a hunting permit. I’d have to ask: How could they have been “hunting legally?”
SOURCES
Marshfield family could face hunter interference charges (Patriot Ledger)
Charges may follow clash with hunters (Boston Globe)
Marshfield family allegedly harassed hunters (Boston Herald)
Couple to be charged for interfering with duck hunters? (CBS News)
I’m thinking collusion between parties to harass the residents. That sort of thing can be determined through testimony under oath.
Even if hunting was allowed and the hunters were in possession of permits, they were still hunting too early in the day and were thus disturbing the peace. It also sounds as if they were purposely harrassing the homeowners as this was the second year they hunted on that land. They were informed last year that it was a no hunting area.
Time for a nice longer investigation and appropriate fines for if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck … it’s a duck.
Seems to me, the only thing the landowners could conceivably be charged with is disturbing the peace with those air horns.
Hunters the same thing, plus a couple of others, such as hunting without a permit and possibly trespassing.
Here is a hypothetical. Suppose the landowners decided to do some target shooting on their own land? Or trimming brush with a chainsaw? Or practicing with their own duck calls…using duck language for signaling danger?
The first problem is in labeling killers as “hunters”. Everyone who enjoys looking for wildlife is a hunter. Only some of us are killers. Clearly killers are ashamed of being killers or they wouldn’t use the euphemism “hunters”. In light of this I always call people who enjoy killing “killers” and I always tell such folks, completely seriously, that I didn’t think they were the type of person who enjoys killing. They work awfully hard to convince themselves that they do it for some other reason than enjoyment of killing, but recognize the truth when it is politely presented to them.
Darrel,
Please inform the rest of us of ALL the relevant facts that we do not now possess. What are the conclusions that people have “jumped to?” The hunters evidently did not have permits to hunt on that piece of conservation land–where hunting is not allowed. One would hope that property owners have the right to feel/be safe on their own land.
You all seem to be not in possession of ALL the relevant facts.
Are you simply letting your emotions make up your own scenario’s, jumping to conclusions and advocating angry people taking the law into their own handy, prejudicial, controlling behaviors as it appears to me???
Like the guy shooting at the golfer who hit his home with a golf ball maybe?
This case against the family / defendants is over from the get go:
Section 5C. No person shall obstruct, interfere with or otherwise prevent the lawful taking of fish or wildlife by another at the locale where such activity is taking place. It shall be a violation of this section for a person to intentionally (1) drive or disturb wildlife or fish for the purpose of interrupting a lawful taking
I cannot believe the LEA even took the time to seek a PC hearing with the judge. All they had to do is read the statute and it is clear there was no crime committed by the defendants because the statute only applies when hunters are doing so lawfully.
Yeah, we have the right to petition our government for redress of duck grievances. Ou se trouve une toilet? Nope, hit the English button. Ok. I am back. This is HumpinDog barkin.
If the land owners who live next to the plot with the rifle shooting trespassers get charged then they need to have the 5th Grade class show up at court with the duck horns and have them protest out on the courthouse plaza where First Amendment rights to warn ducks is permitted.
General Laws (Massachusetts)
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIX/Chapter131/Section5C
PART I ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
(Chapters 1 through 182)
TITLE XIX AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
CHAPTER 131 INLAND FISHERIES AND GAME AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES
Section 5C Obstruction or interference with lawful taking of fish or wildlife; remedies
Section 5C. No person shall obstruct, interfere with or otherwise prevent the lawful taking of fish or wildlife by another at the locale where such activity is taking place. It shall be a violation of this section for a person to intentionally (1) drive or disturb wildlife or fish for the purpose of interrupting a lawful taking; (2) block, follow, impede or otherwise harass another who is engaged in the lawful taking of fish or wildlife; (3) use natural or artificial visual, aural, olfactory or physical stimulus to effect wildlife in order to hinder or prevent such taking; (4) erect barriers with the intent to deny ingress or egress to areas where the lawful taking of wildlife may occur; (5) interject himself into the line of fire; (6) effect the condition or placement of personal or public property intended for use in the taking of wildlife; or (7) enter or remain upon public lands, or upon private lands without the permission of the owner or his agent, with intent to violate this section. The superior court shall have jurisdiction to issue an injunction to enjoin any such conduct or conspiracy in violation of the provisions of this section. A person who sustains damage as a result of any act which is in violation of this section may bring a civil action for punitive damages. Environmental protection officers and other law enforcement officers with arrest powers shall be authorized to enforce the provisions of this section.
This section shall not apply to the owners of the lands or waters or tenants or other persons acting under the authority of such owners of the lands or waters.
I am a pro Second Amendment animal rights member of the NRAJB (No Rifles Aroundhere Joe Bob). God created rifles for a reason. Shoot back and ask no questions of those duck killers.
“Members of the family began to use air horns to possibly attempt to scare away the water fowl, which is interference with a hunter.”
Is there a sign posted that says residents cannot use an air horn? NOPE!
The hunters were on the land illegally, the residents were not so why is this sheriff looking for ways to charge this family? Are the hunters his friends?
There are a number of interesting issues at play here.
Firstly, given the description of the land. It was illegal to hunt on but it was also not enforceable because it was not posted. The hunters did not have a permit. Permit information: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/hunting-fishing-wildlife-watching/hunting/migratory-bird-hunting-in-massachusetts.html
Second there is a claim that the defendants were pelted with falling bird shot. According to this: http://www.fieldandstream.com/answers/hunting/bird-hunting/what-use-hunting-turkeys-ducks-geese-pheasants-and-quail/what-your-favo, They would be useing a #2 or #4 shot. The next question is how far the shot will cary. This is a function of the velocity, density and areodynamic properties of each projectile. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110330200251AAUCmXk If true may provide an answer. Here is a table of shot sizes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_%28pellet%29
So its a .129 dia lead projectile will by my math be back on the earth by 284 yards. However steel is used for waterfowl because its non-toxic so lets call it 300 yards for safety. If the house is within 300 yards of downrange, it would be a safety issue.
As I see it, the hunters violated both federal and state law by not having a license. The Family interfered with the hunt unless it can be shown that the house was in the danger zone (I know that in Maryland DNR Regulations prohibit discharging a firearm [presumably a shotgun] in the direction of a house less than 150 yards away). It appears that both parties are in the wrong here.
In Maryland, bow hunting is being encouraged in the Montgomery County Suburbs to better control deer in the environment we created for them. Hunters take downward shots from tree stands and the only injuries reported have been from hunters falling from the stands. There is a proposal to reduce the safe limit to either 25 or 50 yards as in other jurisdictions. I don’t see this as a 2nd amendment issue, I see this as a hunting regulations issue.
Are you freakin’ kidding me?! The hunters had no permit to hunt and some idiot is considering charging the residents with harassing and threatening to commit a crime?
A valid Massachusetts hunting or sporting license is required of all hunters (residents and non-residents) 15 and older. These licenses are valid for the calendar year. Duck hunters must also have a stamp on the license and have registered with HIP …. it’s not cheap to hunt.
If Police Chief Phil Tavares did not cite the hunters for hunting without a permit and stamp and HIP reg then the citizens of his town need to demand an investigation into why not.
Meanwhile, in another case (that I imagined) ….
A group of ten people were watching ducks, when hunters arrived and began to shoot.
“Hunters began to use their guns to possibly attempt to scare or injure the water fowl, which is interference with bird-watchers”
Police Chief Phil Tavares said his department is seeking a clerk magistrate hearing in order “to determine whether there is probable cause to charge the hunters with ten counts of bird-watcher interference.”
I am that rare pro second amendment vegetarian animal lover. To me shooting a defenceless bird for fun is sickening and if I had bird shot landing on my property I’d return fire. My guns are strictly for defense and that includes tyranical government and douchbag hunters. Mr Turley I loved you when I was a democrat and I love you more as an Independent. I just love people who tell the truth especially since we live in the age of deception.
Interesting story Elaine. I am glad to see that the Conservation Trust at least followed up the apparent need for a no hunting sign to be affixed. Don’t residents in Mass have a right to be safe in their own homes? We know the hunters did not have a permit to hunt on the property. Do we know if they had permits for their guns?
Because hunters and by extension gun owners rule. The rest of us have NO right to be safe from stray bullets, but shot or other projectiles “responsible gun owners” wish to use. We live in strange times where a man can shoot a young man on a public street without punishment but home owners must quietly submit themselves to the tender mercies of hunters.
“They found hunters on conservation land … Wildlands Trust of Southeastern Massachusetts owns the conservation land that abuts the Carreiro’s property. Public recreation is allowed on the trust’s land—but no hunting is permitted there.” – Elaine M
The defendants did nothing wrong, then, it would seem.
To hunt or not…. Post the property….. I’m not sure if the hunters have a right to be there….. But if they do…. Then charges might be appropriate….