I think using suppressors is a tremendous idea. I have significant hearing loss from hunting for 43 yrs without a suppressed weapon. It is definitely a positive move. I also applaud the increase in fines for use while committing a game violation.

I pretty much side whith the wardens on this one. Although it would be nice to be able to afford to fit my rifle with a suppressor for hunting , but too expensive for the average Joe including me, and not necessarily too expensive for those with something illegal going on.
After all to a poacher, a $1500 dollar suppressor could easily save them a few thousand in fines by preventing them from getting caught.
I do agree that if caught poaching with a suppressor, additional penalties should apply but the 500-1000 is not even clost to severe enough for someone that already spent 1500 for a suppressor in order to break the law. Most of them are attempting to and would steal trophy bucks that may easily be worth $10,000 or more in some areas.
I personally believe landowners and hunters would benefit from “neighborhood watch” type groups that have periods of surveillance on hunting areas to catch poachers.
You won’t get a game warden to respond (I don’t believe it is their fault, just too busy and understaffed) but some sheriff departments will respond and it would pay to check with them ahead of time so that no time would be lost when you have one of the dirtbags located and would like to see them caught. Statisics will show that poachers almost always never quit until the threat of getting caught or actually getting caught interferes with their addiction.

I disagree Okiebuckonly, if a poacher was worried about sound he would use a bow or crossbow. By using the game wardens “logic” where would be headed? Having to retrofit loud bells or sirens on our bow that go off when we shoot so that they could tell where we were. You can’t keep criminals from breaking the law by adding more laws.

@ okiebuckonly

Realize that suppressors are not firearms, therefore never should have been regulated under the NFA 1932. Additionally, many Euro nations now require suppressors due to the hearing protection afforded to those around the person shooting plus any towns nearby.

Suppressors were strictly regulated during the depression for the very reason’s the Wardens are concerned about. In fact, the vast majority of those drafted during WWII were turned down because of their small size due to malnourishment. This was caused by a poor diet lacking in protein. It is likely that had suppressors been less regulated (not illegal, as most states still allow them) many more troops would have been able to have been fielded by the US.

Yes, it likely would have hurt the game populations more but push come to shove people win out over animals. They were put here for the purpose of feeding us.

Also think of how many of our troops and hunters would not have as much or at least less hearing damage if suppressors were not seen in such an adverse light. Many units within the military will not authorize individual solders to use their own suppressors because of the appearance it is believed to provide. That of an assassin.

As far as the Wardens being concerned about the state of the wildlife, that means they simply need to do a better job. Suppressors are already legal in OK before this law was written. I am/was a federal LEO and have enforced game laws. It will make it more difficult but not significantly so. Much of time the wardens use a robo-deer to catch poachers. The other time they see spot lights and catch them with it in the back of the truck. That will not change.