Previous Post
Next Post

Ashley Edgeworth loves her some social media. Click here for her Instagram page. It’s kinda surprising it’s still up (at the time of writing), given the hot water the huntress dove into via Snapchat. gives us the 411 from Monroe Louisiana (a.k.a., Sportsman’s Paradise).

According to an arrest affidavit for Ashley Edgeworth, 18, Forest Drive, a wildlife agent received a complaint about Edgeworth night hunting on Horseshoe Lake Road.

The suspect reportedly published a Snapchat video featuring footage of her shooting a firearm, admitting to using a “spotlight” and passing the deer she shot the next morning.

On Jan. 10, the agent interviewed the suspect. Edgeworth said she shot the deer on the side of Horseshoe Lake Road but did not retrieve the corpse.

She said the deer was shot at night using the headlights of a vehicle to see the deer.

Edgeworth reportedly did not have the licenses required to hunt deer and killed it on private property. The property owner indicated they wanted to press trespassing charges.

Edgeworth was booked on charges of taking a deer from a public road, hunting without resident big game licenses, criminal trespass, discharging a firearm from a public road, hunting without a resident license, taking deer in illegal hours and hunting from moving vehicle.

Other than that, #DidnduNothin

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “taking a deer from a public road, hunting without resident big game licenses, criminal trespass, discharging a firearm from a public road, hunting without a resident license, taking deer in illegal hours and hunting from moving vehicle.”

    That’s gonna leave a mark. And she didn’t even take the deer home. Not even the backstraps!


    • Well at least she has a chance at beating one of the charges, as I doubt the vehicle was “moving” when she shot the deer!

  2. Poachers are not hunters. Hunters are not poachers. I turn my back to this game thief and will not acknowledge her as one of us. She is Outcast and no longer welcome at our lodge.
    And the gun bigots will use her as an example of us anyway.

    • She doesn’t even have the excuse of poaching because she was hungry. Sounds like she just shot the deer for shits and giggles. Pretty expensive shits and giggles in the end though.

      • Shits and giggles, fun, is the reason why lot of people ‘hunt’. Hunting forums are publicly viewable so its not exactly hidden.

        Cheap meat is the next reason, followed by agricultural depredation, but that is more culling than hunting.

        Her biggest crime is violating the rule of stupid: If you do something stupid, don’t post it to the internet.

    • Taking game off of land you have no property rights to, is poaching. Regardless of license or season.

      Taking game without a license, or out of season on your own land is not poaching.

      In both cases, its still hunting.

      • It doesn’t matter if you own the land or not. If you take the deer illegally, it’s poaching. Pretty simple concept.

        • If someone takes a deer on their own damn land, especially if its a 50-100+ acre plot, I don’t recognize it as poaching, nor illegal.

          Ask for trial by jury and I’ll vote not guilty, nullification. Likewise for any other “Because I said so!” ‘law’.

          If they take a deer out of public lands, out of season or without a license, I’ll throw the book at them. Your own land is your own business, taking it out of public lands is screwing up everyone else’ fun.

  3. I hope they throw the book at her for this. Poaching for food, i can live with. Poaching for fun or trophy? Wrong. Just flat out wrong. I hope she gets more than just a slap on the wrist. F’ing hate poachers.

  4. I thought poachers were harvesters.
    She’s just a killer.

    Does anybody down there view deer as varmints?

    I leave woodchucks for the buzzards, but had never heard of somebody dropping a deer and not even trying to recover it (until now).

    • My great-grandpa did. Deer would come into his orchard and kill trees by eating the bark. He’d shoot ’em, nobody around gave a damn. It was considered pest control- killing nuisance animals that were destroying crops.

      • I’ve heard of people in Texas who’ve had that kind of negative experience with deer before, too. In rural and even not-so-rural areas, they sometimes get into the trash cans and leave a big mess. They call them “rats on stilts”, but I don’t think there’s much affection in the nickname.

        • They don’t bother any of my crops behind 5′ welded fencing, Its short enough that most could jump it, but like people, animals hate inconvenience. I’ve never seen one jump welded wire.

          Anything not behind welded wire and only 3-4′ barbed wire, runs the risk of being munched down. Naturally, I only plant what they don’t like, unless its behind at least 5′ fencing. 🙂

        • Grr double post.

          Although if they ever do start jumping my fence, and adding 1-2 strands of barbed / razor wire on top of it doesn’t fix the problem, its off to get depredation permits. I think the permits are free as long as you provide proof of damage, but I would have to check.

      • I lived for a few years in rural Illinois where the deer population had exploded. Farmers often lost as much as 20% of their corn to deer. I never heard of any farmer just killing, and not harvesting, deer. Several farmers did offer me a lot of venison, and mentioned that their wives were getting tired of cooking Bambi three or four nights a week. Illinois game and fish (Illinois DNR) folks officially objected to any taking of game out of season but, in that part of the state, never saw or cited any farmers. They did try to keep up with the numbers by accepting reports of “road kill.”

        • Well, if they stopped killing off all of the top predators, wolves, coyotes, etc, the deer population might be kept in check.

    • It is legal in Pennsylvania to kill deer out of season to protect crops. That being said I don’t think it is a practice to just let the meat go to waste like in this case.

  5. Kudos for using the term “poaching” correctly in this case.

    I would have no problem with it if she were on her own land.

  6. Full disclosure, I was probably 25 before I knew that spotlighting was a crime. I didn’t know deer had “seasons” or that it required a license to hunt them until I left for college.
    Of course, the closest house to us was miles and miles away, and grocery shopping was once a month when you drove into town.

    • That and you probably had dial up internet and a bag phone so proclaiming your ignorance to the world was a lot harder.

      • Internet? I had a kerosene generator for power and when we got a phone line it was a “party line”.

        • Damn! You must have been the rich kid in the neighborhood. Probably even had indoor plumbing…

        • “Probably even had indoor plumbing…”
          Eventually, yes. I remember the day we got it. And years later, when it was hot, well that was something.
          And yeah, it was a pretty awesome way to grow up. It has taken me a few decades of work to be rich enough to live as good as I did when I was poor.

        • Everyone should have to spend a year or two of their life in poverty (this is not, repeat not a call for government intervention of any kind). I almost pity those who never have known anything but luxury.


    • ” I didn’t know deer had “seasons” or that it required a license to hunt them until I left for college.”

      I’m inclined to blame your dad, uncles, or whoever taught you hunting to at the least warn you “don’t get caught doing this”, unless he was as naive as you were. And I seriously doubt he was. Everything you have mentioned before this indicated to me you were brought up right by people that cared for you. To me, that kind of omission is surprising, to say the least…

      • Not sure where you got that idea. Single mom, dad in prison, and making it all the way to the poverty line income level would have a been a stretch. I hunted because I was hungry.

      • Yeah Geoff, I know people who [when younger than 13] took a 6′ sturgeon bow-fishing. No one KNEW they were going to do it. Hell, they probably thought they had INVENTED bow-fishing. They just knew that they saw the sturgeons up near the surface of the water early every morning and couldn’t get them to touch any form of bait or lure dangling in front of the sturgeon’s face, and making and using a SPEAR that made out of cedar was their backup plan. The bow thing worked, the rest was Moby Dick.

        Long story longer, they couldn’t get the thing in the boat, and finally had to cut it loose. When they told their parents what ALMOST got brought home, there were some incredibly incredulous looks, and a serious amount of stern STFU’s passed around.

        I don’t blame the parents, on this fishing story, I bet the parents of this girl didn’t even know she was slinging a rifle / shotgun at any time or their would have been an intervening moment.

        I blame alcohol for the deer story, AND YES, HUNGER ON THE FISHING STORY (some people’s moms wouldn’t serve breakfast until you brought home dinner, and that leads to all kinds of SEABEE-ing UP). And it is a shame that no animal was recovered and I hope she downed it but was too lazy to track the short run-off.

    • Better to keep your mouth shut and let the world think you are a fool then to go on snap-chat and prove it.

  7. The only legitimate charge here is trespassing. The government doesn’t own the game. I’ll be dammed if I pay the government yet another fee or tax for delivery of unwanted services. All these fudds can shove their bootlicking love of authoritarianism where the sun doesn’t shine. This girl is little more than a idiot and a trespasser. I find it hard to believe when any rural southerner tries to preach about poaching as if they didn’t do the same thing when they were young.

    • You may not believe it, but I never did the same thing when I was that young. Or even younger, when I started hunting with my father. Part of learning about hunting was learning about not being one of these types. It was a lot less about the legality of it, and a lot more respecting nature, getting along with neighbors, and not being a greedy dirtbag.

      In this case, sure, I blame the parents, too. But she still gets a SMH and a couple of frowns faces.

    • ‘The government doesn’t own the g ame.’

      No, God does and he put the government in charge of regulating the hun ting of them.

      I’ll grant you that not all of their rules make sense or are probably necessary, but if no one regulates the taking of g ame in a nation where people outnumber (for instance) white tailed deer by ten to one, they’ll soon outnumber them by 10,000 to one and eventually drive them to extinction. I live in Iowa where white tailed deer had to be reintroduced to the state back in the 1960s because there weren’t any left here. The same in the 1990s with wild turkey.

      • I might add that it was the Iowa Department of Natural Resources that reintroduced deer and turkey to the state.

    • I don’t know what the law is in other states (although I suspect in most it is the same or similar), in California ALL wild game is owned by the State, and it is illegal to take any such game (or fish) without obtaining a license and under such regulations as the state imposes, including seasons, size of catch, number of birds or animals, etc. And this is not a new law, but goes all the way back to 1850 when the state was created. The basic theory is that such regulations prevent overhunting/fishing and the loss of the resource; regulation is thus required in the public interest.

      • The precedent goes far farther back, as you are undoubtedly aware.

        Taking the King’s game was a *big* no-no in ‘Ye Olde England’, and the penalties kept the King’s executioner busy, busy, busy…

    • The near obliteration of the American Bison is an example of what happens in a nation with plenty of wildlife and no hunting regulations.

      • The near obliteration of the American Bison is an example of official policy. It was done to starve the Indians into submission.

    • I can’t speak to hunting, since I have only a smattering of experience with it. However, growing up on the Texas gulf coast, I can say that as a kid we all took state-regulated fish size and bag limits very seriously. That’s salt water, though.

      In fresh water, I knew people who had their own stocked ponds and I never turned down an invitation to come fish those ponds. We did a lot of goofy stuff as kids, I’ll concede, but raiding a man’s pond without permission wasn’t one of them.

    • Deer are monitored and harvested as needed to maintain a healthy deer herd-the same with hunting seasons-they are designed around the deers life and reproductive cycle-also the quality of meat by hunting during cooler or cold seasons.
      Poaching is illegal period,and ignorance of the law is no excuse,she took a deer out of season=poaching,she was shining when she shot it=poaching,she didnt have permission to hunt on private property=poaching,she didnt have a license=poaching,she shoot out of a vehicle=poaching,she shot from a roadway=poaching.
      She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of all of these laws,as they are all made for a reason,im sure many will not understand these reasons,but that again is no excuse,it falls under ignorance of the law is no excuse,if you are going to do something,make sure you know your laws,and a dollar to a donut hole she knew she was breaking everyone of those laws.From some comments here,how so many of you think you are above the law is just stupid,and you give actual true hunters a bad name.
      I hope to see more on this where they throw the book at her for every law she broke,and she gets locked up for a long time,this is a prime example of someone killing something just for the fun of it,they have no use in our society.

        • Disagree. Both our comments belong up at the top because they are nonconsensus topics for debate rather than self aggrandizing “reaffirming your own belief” kind of statements.

          Or at the very least, my statement belongs up here with his.

      • “It falls under, ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
        Do you have any idea of how many “laws” are on the books? I’m not a lawyer, but I’m sure lawyers spend a lot of time and money learning about all these laws. So how are we, as mere mortals, expected to know every law about everything that encompasses us in our every day life?
        How are we supposed to know all these laws.
        I agree that someone intending to use a firearm should at least read about the basic rules governing the use of such devices, but ignorance of the law, is no excuse, to me, is just a “catch phrase” cops and prosecutors can use in a court of law, when they can’t come up with a valid reason to “convict”

  8. She’s just a kid. Kids do stupid things. If she was a repeat offender, ok, toss the book at her. Make her learn her lesson and let her go. No reason to screw up this girls future. Everyone take a deep breath.

    • A kid? Maybe (obviously) she has the maturity level of a kid.

      But she’s old enough to vote, open a bank account, sign a marriage license, join the Army and buy cigarettes.

      And if she’s old enough to do those things, she’s darn well old enough to pay the consequences of breaking the laws.

      There’s a term used to describe 18-yr-old “kids” who break the law. They’re called criminals. Our prisons are filled with “kids” who refused to grow up. Our judicial system should treat her like any other first offender, but not like a kid.

      • As I told my 1st. husband “you won’t always be young, but you can be immature forever”, as the reason why he was becoming my ex-husband.

        I fear this young woman is an example of that , not going to go well for her. Didn’t go well for ex husband.
        Died at 62 from heart surgery. 2nd bypass surgery due to drinking and smoking 😳

        • Never had a heart attack. Gave up smoking 50 years ago, Gave up drinking 18 years ago. Gave up sex, ………………….wait a minute! I never gave that up, it was “Taken” from me. Have been through two cancers. You wouldn’t believe how many wives I’ve had, and none of them have been able to “do me in” yet. However, I wouldn’t bet on the present one.

    • How is she any different than Leopold and Loeb, teens who lured a child to a place where they murdered him, so they could find out what it was like to kill someone? this girl went out and killed a deer just to find out what it was like to kill something. That is a dangerous mentality.

    • These “kids” and their mistakes are ruining it for the rest of us who abide by hunting laws…

  9. Please forgive an off-topic remark that occurs to me.

    We PotG assert that the 2A is NOT about hunting. The commentary above is one bit of evidence to that effect. Our State legislators and DNR officials adopt countless laws regulating the practice of hunting; and, even the bearing of arms in the context of hunting. We PotG debate the merits (or sometimes, lack thereof) of such hunting laws; nevertheless, we approach 100% compliance. Not perfect; but nearly so. We have governance of hunting “by consent of the governed.” Any 2A argument against hunting laws are nearly unheard-of.

    It’s perfectly clear that the 2A is about self-defense and the security of a free state. We PotG can tell the difference between management of “the king’s deer” vs. management of the “king” himself.

    • Interesting observation. Although, it could fall into the “Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it” category.

      Knocking down some senseless or outdated hunting laws would be beneficial, but not if it recasts the 2A as being primarily about hunting. That shifts the argument from one about infringement of fundamental individual rights, and to one about management of scarce collective resources.

      The inherent legal and political risks aside for the moment, could a pro-hunting case be made based on the 2A? If we regard it as necessary ,.ecurity of a free state, then doesn’t that imply parity between security of a free state, and freedom othe underlying way of life that constitutes a free state, including hunting?

      • Jonathan, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The issue is – I think we agree – ‘What is the 2A “right” all about?’

        The Anti’s argue that it is “all about” the “militia”, an institution that no longer exists. Thus, the 2A is as obsolete as the initiating clauses such as the terms of the initial cohorts of senators.

        Pro-gun advocates argue that the “right” clause runs to “the People” and that mention of the “militia” is not controlling. But, without saying anything more, this explanation leaves the militia clause dangling with no apparent purpose. This is troubling from an interpretation viewpoint.

        My resolution of the dilemma is (I think) novel. I invite the reader of the 2A to imagine – as a thought experiment – where we would be in our interpretation effort if the 1’st Congress had left-out any prefatory clause. What, then, would we make of “the right” of “the People”. We would be in the unenviable position of SCOTUS in trying to figure this out. What had the founding generation (who ratified the 2A) thought about including in this “right”?

        Any conjecture might be on equal footing as every other conjecture. E.g., suppose the conjecture might be that: “A well regulated company of hunters being necessary to the full larder of a well-nourished community, . . .” Or, “A well regulated competition among marksmen being necessary to the pursuit of happiness, . . . ” Either of these might seem competitive with the proposition that an armed citizenry is required to ensure that the government is responsive to the consent of the governed, including any minority interest willing to go to war to secure their objectives.

        As the facts are, the 1’st Congress did NOT FAIL to mention what they had in mind. They wrote of “the security of a free state”. Those words give us some hint as to what the ratifying generation might have understood those words to mean.

        A reasonable interpretation of the 2A might, then, be that the purpose keeping and bearing of arms was intended to include diverse purposes, which were lawful under the Common Law as understood at the time. These would include hunting in America (but would be restrained in England at the time), marksmanship as a common pastime, self-defense as a right to life recognized since Roman times, and perhaps other activities (collecting). The one purpose which might be controversial was that of taking-up arms in opposition to the government. Reasonable men might be of different opinions on this – but not the other – possible uses. As the one, obvious, controversial issue, the 1’st Congress resolved the matter in favor of vesting the capacity-to-rebel in the citizenry.

        The language used “security of a free state” was delicate and vague. Nevertheless, the ratifying generation was expected to grasp the drift of the language from the course of recent (as well as ancient) history. The vehicle mentioned was a “militia” which may have served two purposes. First, it explained that it was “necessary” to accomplished the purpose specified. No single individual could accomplish the important purpose; nor was there any intention of qualifying any single individual to rise-up-in-arms to overcome the government. Second, “well regulated” implied that the militia not be neutered by limiting arms to militiamen that would be inferior to those of the government’s agents (presumably, a standing army).

        Now, therefore, I reason that “the right” of “the People” was to “keep and bear arms” for any purpose that would have been deemed lawful in the era of the ratifying generation. Such purposes would certainly have included hunting, . . . , self-defense as these were historically (in America) clearly within the class of activities deemed lawful. And, lest there be any doubt as to the one issue that might become contentions, yes, even armed opposition to the government, any foreign invader, pirates or the like, was included. There was no intention to limit arms to pistols for self-defense, shotguns for fowling or rifles for hunting deer.

        If a reader finds my reasoning persuasive then I think we are secure in our right to keep and bear arms suitable for hunting, marksmanship, self-defense, collecting and such benign purposes. The practice of any of these involving the discharge of weapons that threaten public safety IS subject to regulation. E.g., prescribing the standards for shooting ranges within municipal boundaries. Limiting the harvest of game by season or quantity. The ratifying generation probably did not feel the need to guarantee non-infringement on these sorts of regulation. They DID feel the need to guarantee non-infringement on the keeping or bearing of arms that would augur for “a well regulated militia” that would tend to be “necessary for the security of a free state”.

  10. taking a deer from a public road

    This should be legal. Why would it matter as long as you have a tag.

    <hunting without resident big game licenses

    This is just a deer right? What big game?

    hunting without a resident license

    This should be legal. All you should really have to pay for is a tag.

    criminal trespass

    I agree with this if there are signs posted or if the property owner has told them before to stay off the property.

    discharging a firearm from a public road

    This should be legal.

    taking deer in illegal hours

    This should be legal.

    and hunting from moving vehicle

    This should be legal. Was she even hunting from a moving vehicle? From the story, it didn’t seem so.

    • you are a complete moron,and yet another 1 that feels they should be above the law-you are so very wrong-these laws were made to help protect wildlife from idiots like you.From your comment i would not permit you to own any type of firearm,or be allowed to hunt-again,its idiots like you that give hunters a bad name,but you sure uphold the ignorance stance

      • you are a complete moron

        Mmm. That’s subjective and not a convincing argument, especially to me.

        and yet another 1 that feels they should be above the law

        Negative. I didn’t say I felt I was above the law. I stated what I thought the law should be.

        you are so very wrong-these laws were made to help protect wildlife from idiots like you.

        Hardily disagree. These laws are for the purpose of conservation, taking our money, and to employ hoards of mostly useless bureaucrats in a self serving industry created for the sake of the industry itself. That said, some wildlife conservation is achieved out of their colossal expensive inefficient bureaucracy. So I have to give credit where it is due.

        From your comment i would not permit you to own any type of firearm

        LOL. Of course. That's because you are a tyrant. Your thoughts even mirror those of government regime tyrants. But luckily for me, nobody gives a s*** what you think.

        or be allowed to hunt-again,

        LOL. Yes. See above.

        its idiots like you that give hunters a bad name,

        Because my opinion I posted on a blog? LOL. Ok.

        but you sure uphold the ignorance stance

        LOL. Sure.

        • wow you just keeping on spouting ignorance,which is your right-and it is your right to express your opinions,no matter how stupid they are,and no i personally would not let you be a gun owner,as im sure you live by what you THINK the laws should be,not what they are,as long as this is the only interaction i will have with your ignorance,i consider myself lucky-and im not too scared to post my own name,if i were your kind of stupid i would stay anonymous too– have a nice day

    • That resident hunting license has always pissed me off too, that should be for out of state guys. The States deer? then why doesn’t the State fix my car when their deer are running loose on public roads? The States deer are kept and fed mostly by private land owners, I guess the State should be reimburse those farmers for their crops and habitat. Ironic that the State only claims the deer when there’s money to be made. I’ve repaired the electric fence that keeps my cattle off the county’s road six times so far this year, because the deer run through it. If somebody hits my cow I’m at fault.

  11. The 2A wasn’t about hunting. It was all about who was going to be the master. The people or the government.

  12. She is a criminal.
    No matter what someone’s opinion is concerning hunting and laws, by Louisiana law she is a criminal ( when convicted).
    Personally, as both a hunter and land owner here in Louisiana, I hope they throw the book at her! 18 is SUPPOSED to be an adult and able to make good life choices.
    Obviously this was for kicks since she didnt need the meat (I can understand someone doing this to feed their family).
    Also, not mentioned in article is the fact that her vehicle, gun, and other gear involved could be confiscated.

  13. A little hunting story to lighten the mood.

    Waaaaay back in the 80s my uncle had a farm in rural Missouri. Nearest neighbor was Jimmy about 1/2 mile down the dirt road. One year my uncle, Jimmy, and some of the other guys went deer hunting in Jimmy’s van. The plan was to run down the road and if they saw a deer they would open the sliding door on the van and shoot the deer. So off they go, with multiple bottles of whiskey in hand. I think you can see where this one is going.

    Several hours later they come home, drunker than a sailor on liberty, whooping and hollering about how they got the biggest deer they’d ever seen, except it ran off after they shot it and they couldn’t find it. They ran out of energy shortly after that and didn’t try to go find the deer because it was dark out.

    Next day Jimmy is over at my uncle’s house saying one of his cows was missing and there was a hole in his fence and tire tracks all over his field.

    I was so glad I didn’t go hunting with them.

  14. A real loser. Too bad people like this get lumped into responsible shooting and hunting enthusiasts.

Comments are closed.