The Autonomous You Tubers

[Moindreffor]

Yes, you're right. Indeed. I should not have gone that way, it discredits the rest (which may not be so wrong?).

I think that impunity poses a problem (even if I do not think that sanctions have exemplary value: a criminal assumes that he will not be caught because he has well prepared his coup, or acts "out of the box. him ", in which case he does not think about it; therefore sentencing a criminal to death will not deter others ...)

on the other hand, to condemn him to give back a bear, will very quickly understand to others that whatever they do the bear will be reintroduced, so the uselessness of the thing, condemn it in addition to criminal would only aggravate an already tense climate , but actually a little sentence in more history to mark the coup could have been put rather than nothing

A small sentence and especially a big fine: Make him pay the price of transport and the bear.

he must bring back a bear so it must be in any case I hope, otherwise yes is fucked mouth

[sicetaitsimple]

You laugh? Convict someone to reintroduce a bear?

No, he was ordered to pay about 15000 € (in all, 1500 to 3500 € per head of pipe) to the associations that had appealed and that were recognized as legitimate to do according to their statutes.
The judgment is there:
http://www.sepanso64.org/IMG/pdf/arret_ ... _09_09.pdf

[GuyGadebois]

You laugh? Convict someone to reintroduce a bear?

To make him pay for the price of the reintroduction and the price of the bear, that's what was said.
I would add that he should be sugared for life with his right to hunt.

[sicetaitsimple]

To make him pay for the price of the reintroduction and the price of the bear, that's what was said.

What was "said" (imagined?) On this thread of Econology, perhaps, what was "written" in the judgment of appeal is different.

[Did67]

What was written in the FNE document that I put the address is: "The Court of Appeal of Pau condemned the hunter who killed Ours Cannelle to repair the damages suffered by several associations including SEPANSO, Nature Midi-Pyrénées and the National Society for the Protection of Nature, associations federated with France Nature Environment . "

What I wrote is:

"On appeal, the hunter was ordered to make reparation for the damage [????? he was obliged to go and get a spare bear in Slovenia ???]"

It's online.

It was therefore a matter of compensation for the damage without any particulars. That's what was written.

It went without saying that the part between ???? was because I doubted very much that it was the sanction (if only because it would probably not be possible to condemn someone to go "predate" a bear in another country!)

Since we will talk about it again: note that the damage mentioned is not that suffered by "nature", the bears, or the State representing the bears, but that suffered by the associations which lodged a complaint. Which one, in fact ???

[sicetaitsimple]

What was written in the FNE document that I put the address is: "The Court of Appeal of Pau condemned the hunter who killed Ours Cannelle to repair the damages suffered by several associations including SEPANSO, Nature Midi-Pyrénées and the National Society for the Protection of Nature, associations federated with France Nature Environment . "

What I wrote is:

"On appeal, the hunter was ordered to make reparation for the damage [????? he was obliged to go and get a spare bear in Slovenia ???]"

It's online.

It was therefore a matter of compensation for the damage without any particulars. That's what was written.

It went without saying that the part between ???? was because I doubted very much that it was the sanction (if only because it would probably not be possible to condemn someone to go "predate" a bear in another country!)

Since we will talk about it again: note that the damage mentioned is not that suffered by "nature", the bears, or the State representing the bears, but that suffered by the associations which lodged a complaint. Which one, in fact ???

Your initial doubt as to the real nature of the damage compensation was perfectly clear "go and get a spare bear in Slovenia ????" "of course that is ridiculous.
Then it's a little packed .... I just allowed myself to quote the judgment.

[GuyGadebois]

The Urdos hunting company is being held responsible for the damage and will pay 53 000 euros to WWF.
https://www.sudouest.fr/2013/06/07/mort ... 4-4344.php

The correctional court of Pau relaxed on Monday Rene Marquez (Marquèze), the hunter who killed in 2004 the cinnamon bear ...
https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/0 ... -2004.html

[Moindreffor]

You laugh? Convict someone to reintroduce a bear?

No, he was ordered to pay about 15000 € (in all, 1500 to 3500 € per head of pipe) to the associations that had appealed and that were recognized as legitimate to do according to their statutes.
The judgment is there:
http://www.sepanso64.org/IMG/pdf/arret_ ... _09_09.pdf

Well, if it really covers the costs it is a minimum, otherwise it is actually too light

[GuyGadebois]

You laugh? Convict someone to reintroduce a bear?

No, he was ordered to pay about 15000 € (in all, 1500 to 3500 € per head of pipe) to the associations that had appealed and that were recognized as legitimate to do according to their statutes.
The judgment is there:
http://www.sepanso64.org/IMG/pdf/arret_ ... _09_09.pdf

Well, if it really covers the costs it is a minimum, otherwise it is actually too light

Relaxed in 2008 ...

[sicetaitsimple]

Relaxed in 2008 ...

and sentenced on appeal in 2009 (the judgment I quote).