# Check out this news SSStory



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46215403&n...nitored-by-wildlife-officials-found-shot-dead


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

Soooooo, are they giving the reward to the guy that shot them or to the guy that turns him in?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I love stories with happy endings...................like this one


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I wish I knew who did it...I would take that reward in a heartbeat!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Not enough of the 2nd S.


-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> I wish I knew who did it...I would take that reward in a heartbeat!


$20k could buy me a lot of wolf permits!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Or a real nice overseas hunting trip


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

This is what bugs me about the hunting public....we pick and choose which laws are OK to break and which aren't. I don't give a dang how bad wolves are to big game populations or to our hunting habits; killing one is against the law and any "hunter" that practices the SSS theory is an opponent of all hunting. Anyone who condones such a practice is an enemy to our sport and to any ethical hunter in general.

Had the story been about a trophy elk that had been poached because it was destroying private land, all of you would have been calling for the guy to hang from a noose....but, since it is a mean nasty wolf, it is ok.


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> This is what bugs me about the hunting public....we pick and choose which laws are OK to break and which aren't. I don't give a dang how bad wolves are to big game populations or to our hunting habits; killing one is against the law and any "hunter" that practices the SSS theory is an opponent of all hunting. Anyone who condones such a practice is an enemy to our sport and to any ethical hunter in general.
> 
> So if 7 wolves came into your farm killed a mare ran the baby through the fence, killed 2 calves you would leave them alone and let them come back the next night.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> I don't give a dang how bad wolves are to big game populations or to our hunting habits; killing one is against the law


Not true. There are plenty of legal ways to kill a wolf.



wyoming2utah said:


> Had the story been about a trophy elk that had been poached because it was destroying private land, all of you would have been calling for the guy to hang from a noose....but, since it is a mean nasty wolf, it is ok.


Yep. Mostly because the only good wolf is a dead wolf. My family got its name due to my family name progenitor saving the king of Scotland from wolves with a bone-handled knife. (sgian-dubh) Our clan has hated (or loved?) wolves ever since...


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I’ll admit, I much favor deer or elk over wolves. I don’t condone breaking the law but I’m willing to have some fun with a story like this and I couldn’t care less if there are a couple less wolves.

If the last wolf in the West got run over by a drunk driver in a Subaru on the way to Burning Man it would be fine by me.......no, I’m not condoning drunk driving or Burnin Man......just sayin’————SS


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Wow, never expected hunters to so openly support poaching. I know plenty hate wolves but taking wildlife without a tag is poaching through and through. This type of relativism is an open door to all sorts of activity that is harmful to game. One man's wolf is another man's elk herd grazing their hard worked field.


----------



## plottrunner (Apr 3, 2008)

backcountry said:


> Wow, never expected hunters to so openly support poaching. I know plenty hate wolves but taking wildlife without a tag is poaching through and through. This type of relativism is an open door to all sorts of activity that is harmful to game. One man's wolf is another man's elk herd grazing their hard worked field.


The difference is I can gun down the herd of elk, call the dwr to come and get them and not face federal prison....


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

backcountry said:


> Wow, never expected hunters to so openly support poaching. I know plenty hate wolves but taking wildlife without a tag is poaching through and through. This type of relativism is an open door to all sorts of activity that is harmful to game. One man's wolf is another man's elk herd grazing their hard worked field.


Wow, I never expected hunters to so openly support the introduction and protection of an invasive species that has the same effect on native herds and other natural predators as poaching does.

I wonder, are there more elk killed in Idaho by poachers or by the offspring of the wolves that were transplanted there by humans? I personally think that the intentions of the wolf-proliferation group are just as nefarious as poachers and I consider them equally yoked. An animal killed by a poacher from Payson or a wolf from Canada is equally as dead for no good reason.

You say shame on me, I say shame on you.----SS


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

None tackle the primary issue: taking animals by vigilantes. In a civil society aren't we supposed to use the legal system to change issues that we disagree with? Had never heard of the "SSS" mantra until today but it sounds like every justification for criminal activity I have ever encountered.

I get frustration. I get being on the losing political side. We all do, as we all experience it every day of our lives. But we suck it up and fight the good fight with the systems in place to foster change. 

This isn't a pro or anti issue for wolves. This is an issue of criminal poaching. One day it may benefit your worldview but the next its just as likely to hurt it. 

Not shaming, just shocked to hear folks so non-nonchalantly supporting poaching.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

plottrunner said:


> The difference is I can gun down the herd of elk, call the dwr to come and get them and not face federal prison....


Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems unusual for even the most blatant of poachers to get jail time for killing wolves:

1) Three found guilty in WA (2012) and receive monetary fines and probation
2) Man plead guilty in 2015 and received $2000+ fine and forfeited weapon

In Utah the wanton take of wildlife valued greater than $500, which includes elk, can be tried as a third degree felony. And a conviction of a poached "trophy animal" is actually supposed to require a 20 day minimum sentence. That is a stronger penalty than the wolf poaching listed above.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title23/Chapter20/23-20-S4.html?v=C23-20-S4_1800010118000101


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

backcountry said:


> None tackle the primary issue: taking animals by vigilantes. In a civil society aren't we supposed to use the legal system to change issues that we disagree with? Had never heard of the "SSS" mantra until today but it sounds like every justification for criminal activity I have ever encountered.
> 
> I get frustration. I get being on the losing political side. We all do, as we all experience it every day of our lives. But we suck it up and fight the good fight with the systems in place to foster change.
> 
> ...


Yep, you're right on all points made in this post. I'm still glad the wolves are dead. I don't condone the means but I'm good with the end. If the poachers get caught, then yippee....three birds with one stone. Dead wolves, jailed poachers, and someone is $20k richer.---SS


----------



## plottrunner (Apr 3, 2008)

backcountry said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems unusual for even the most blatant of poachers to get jail time for killing wolves:
> 
> 1) Three found guilty in WA (2012) and receive monetary fines and probation
> 2) Man plead guilty in 2015 and received $2000+ fine and forfeited weapon
> ...


I was not referring to someone poaching trophy elk. I was using your statement of


> One man's wolf is another man's elk herd grazing their hard worked field.


Per Utah code; https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-044.htm#T4



> R657-44-4. Landowner or Lessee Authorized to Kill Big Game Animals.
> (1) The landowner or lessee is authorized to kill big game animals damaging cultivated crops on cleared and planted land pursuant to Section 23-16-3.1.
> 
> (2) The expiration of the damage incident period does not preclude the landowner or lessee from making future claims.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

riptheirlips said:


> So if 7 wolves came into your farm killed a mare ran the baby through the fence, killed 2 calves you would leave them alone and let them come back the next night.


I never said that...many who commented at the first of this thread were actively condoning the poaching or illegal killing of a wolf. I suggested that these same people wouldn't openly condone the poaching or illegal killing of an elk. To me, that is pathetic!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Not true. There are plenty of legal ways to kill a wolf.
> 
> Yep. Mostly because the only good wolf is a dead wolf. My family got its name due to my family name progenitor saving the king of Scotland from wolves with a bone-handled knife. (sgian-dubh) Our clan has hated (or loved?) wolves ever since...


This thread is referring to the illegal kill of a wolf...not a legal one.

...So, it is ok to break the law if you disagree with it? So, it is ok for me to party hunt if I disagree with the law? Sorry, but that's BS!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

plottrunner said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems unusual for even the most blatant of poachers to get jail time for killing wolves:
> ...


We both know my statement requires more nuance and complexity:

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title23/Chapter16/23-16-S3.1.html?v=C23-16-S3.1_1800010118000101

For the most part, we know land owners can't just kill big game on their cultivated land, hence the comparison. When you read the law in its entirety the landowner must notify the agency of intent to kill the animals. Follow the specifics of the Utah Code highlighted there and its not poaching. Don't follow it and its poaching, which is clearly what I was referring to given controversial issues in Utah. Now we are back to an apples to apples comparison, ie wanton illegal killing of wildlife.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> This thread is referring to the illegal kill of a wolf...not a legal one.
> 
> ...So, it is ok to break the law if you disagree with it? So, it is ok for me to party hunt if I disagree with the law? Sorry, but that's BS!


My progenitor did not need a license to save the king's life, and I do not need a license to save our elk. Viva la revolucion!!! We don't just stand by and accept defeat because of what the pesky old law says.

Over, you say? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Cause when the goin' gets tough, the tough get goin'. Who's with me? Let's go kill some wolves!

Just remember, W2U, it's not a lie, if you believe it. -George Costanza


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Yup, it's ok to pick and choose which laws we can and cannot break....as long as we disagree with the law, we are ok to break it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’m glad our founding fathers were willing to disobey a few British laws many moons ago. Bow to the crown if you’d like. I’ll take freedom! 

Wolves = taxation without representation. Revolution time!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm glad our founding fathers put a logical way into revising and changing the laws we don't like into our constitution. I am glad our founding fathers created a system of government that involved revisions of law through a legislative process. It isn't the 1700s anymore and we aren't governed by England!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I seriously doubt that god would have created long range rifles if he did not expect them to be used on wolves. Just sayin...


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

riptheirlips said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > This is what bugs me about the hunting public....we pick and choose which laws are OK to break and which aren't. I don't give a dang how bad wolves are to big game populations or to our hunting habits; killing one is against the law and any "hunter" that practices the SSS theory is an opponent of all hunting. Anyone who condones such a practice is an enemy to our sport and to any ethical hunter in general.
> ...


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Springville Shooter said:


> Wow, I never expected hunters to so openly support the introduction and protection of an invasive species that has the same effect on native herds and other natural predators as poaching does.
> 
> I wonder, are there more elk killed in Idaho by poachers or by the offspring of the wolves that were transplanted there by humans? I personally think that the intentions of the wolf-proliferation group are just as nefarious as poachers and I consider them equally yoked. An animal killed by a poacher from Payson or a wolf from Canada is equally as dead for no good reason.
> 
> You say shame on me, I say shame on you.----SS


If you look at fishing in most areas. Rainbow trout, Brown Trout, etc are an invasive species planted by the DWR and supported by the public.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

I hate conversations like these with hunters. Being in a state trying that is trying to get grizzlies de-listed, then having hunters say 'Kill them all' & 'The only good one is a dead one' only handcuffs the process of trying to manage predators like other species. 

Predators should be managed like deer and elk. Wolves would be something fun to go after when the ice fishing sucks during the winter. 

I guess the point pressed by hunters needs to change. We need to conserve all wildlife and not just the wildlife with antlers than can go on walls. 

TL;DR - Don't say things that make the legalization of hunting them worse.


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> riptheirlips said:
> 
> 
> > What if a deer hopped over my fence and gored your dog to death?
> ...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> riptheirlips said:
> 
> 
> > What if a deer hopped over my fence and gored your dog to death?
> ...


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

> An unjust law is no law at all. St Augustine


I certainly do not condone breaking of the law, but this was a favorite quote of Martin Luther King and I think eventually laws will prevail in making these enviro whacko groups stick to their original agreements of number of breeding pairs, etc. I am just amazed at what a ridiculously one-sided slow process this has been in that they were supposed to be delisted at x pairs and even now at x x10 pairs they now think is not enough...I just cannot respect such a group at all, and now it is federal crime to do what the original agreement indicated. Only a matter of time and im sure the body count will continue to rise unfortunately.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Could you be more specific, Huge29? Is it the ESA that is unjust? From my understanding, it was a judges decision in an appeal by the Humane Society that reversed the delisting. Am I wrong? If not, the the agencies and working groups did their best but a third party chose to challenge it legally. Was the Humane Society an original member of the working group that creating the Recovery Plan?

Our legal system is cumbersome at moments like this. But it appears to me the federal agencies and the states did their best to get it delisted. Yet, our citizens, and their various organizations (we have our own as hunters that use the legal system to our benefit) found an appeal that had legal merit. This time it sucks is you were pro-delisting yet great if you wanted to maintain expanded protections.

I would just hesitate to quote MLK Jr and St Augustine on this one. I don't think it reaches the requirement that any law that "degrades human personality is unjust" that he outlined in his letter. Being on the losing side of a legal battle doesn't make a law unjust. This is the reason we have a multi-tiered court system. I may not agree with appeal but I also recognize that neither the ESA, nor the appeal, degrade citizens or work against natural law.

As a former environmentalist (just see my responses to Paddle to see how far I have walked from that camp) I can tell you they are just as befuddled by pro-hunting measures and lawsuits as you are with them in this case. Our personal interest and advocacy often collides with other stakeholders, from environmentalist to OHV users in critical habitat (HERE). Life would be alot simpler if the answers were more black and white but sadly its often complex shades of grey with alot of interpretation. The Humane Society succeeded this time but there is a strong history of legislators and anti-wolf hunting groups working to make the delisting a reality.

The process continues. I would sure love to find a more effective amendment to the ESA but I am not sure we are in era in which that is possible.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I seriously doubt that god would have created long range rifles if he did not expect them to be used on wolves. Just sayin...


I seriously doubt God would have created wolves if he didn't want them eating elk and deer....just sayin!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Nope, it was for us to shoot. It’s science.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> I seriously doubt God would have created wolves if he didn't want them eating elk and deer....just sayin!


Well guess who God put at the top of the food chain...? Equating a wolf to a game animal is about as dumb a thing as I have heard on here and I've heard some pretty dumb things on here.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> I'm glad our founding fathers were willing to disobey a few British laws many moons ago. Bow to the crown if you'd like. I'll take freedom!
> 
> Wolves = taxation without representation. Revolution time!


Did you just finish watching _"Braveheart"_ or _"The Patriot"_? I can imagine you giving a rallying speech, leading the wolf hunters and their long range guns into battle against tyranny. :hail:


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla - classic...!

Nothing to fear. Same thing will happen with wolves for the lower 48 that just happened with grizz in BC. It's all good and the wolf population will be kept in check.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

CPAjeff said:


> Did you just finish watching _"Braveheart"_ or _"The Patriot"_? I can imagine you giving a rallying speech, leading the wolf hunters and their long range guns into battle against tyranny. :hail:


I _am_ William Wallace...


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

longbow said:


> Soooooo, are they giving the reward to the guy that shot them or to the guy that turns him in?


Doesn't matter what side of this issue you're on, that's a goodun.

.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm confused by all the "invasive species" rhetoric... especially when it's wrapped up in a discussion about protecting cattle and sheep.

I'm also against poaching, regardless of the species. Wolves are protected, as are rattlesnakes. Hunters should be law-abiding stewards of wildlife, not vigilantes picking which laws they'll choose to follow.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

grizzly said:


> I'm confused by all the "invasive species" rhetoric... especially when it's wrapped up in a discussion about protecting cattle and sheep.
> 
> I'm also against poaching, regardless of the species. Wolves are protected, as are rattlesnakes. Hunters should be law-abiding stewards of wildlife, not vigilantes picking which laws they'll choose to follow.


Perhaps your confusion lies in your misunderstanding of the difference between agriculture and nature?
Your soapbox stance on "law abiding stewards" is nice too except for the fact that every single person chooses to not obey the law to some capacity. Then there are the laws that the authorities refuse to enforce. --SS


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Springville Shooter said:


> Perhaps your confusion lies in your misunderstanding of the difference between agriculture and nature?
> Your soapbox stance on "law abiding stewards" is nice too except for the fact that every single person chooses to not obey the law to some capacity. Then there are the laws that the authorities refuse to enforce. --SS


My point is that cattle and sheep are also invasive species that negatively affect the carrying capacity of native wildlife. That's the reason the cattlemen associations are always lobbying for less elk. Are you okay shooting non-native wildlife but not non-native livestock?

Your argument about everybody ignoring some laws is a red herring meant to detract from the real issue. It's a moral relativism argument that taken to it's extremes means rolling a stop sign is akin to murder. Obviously a ridiculous argument (and not one that I'm implying you're making), but just because we all stretch some laws doesn't justify breaking others.

To stay closer to topic... I doubt that you'd be okay with poaching elk. But what about in areas that they were introduced (Kentucky or Pennsylvania), would it be okay there? What about bison or bighorn sheep that have been introduced or re-introduced? Utah just introduced Mountain Goats in the Last Sal unit, where they've never lived before... are they non-native and thus okay to shoot? What about shooting cattle that are illegally damaging riparian zones or sheep that aren't being moved enough and are thus in violation of their grazing permit? Can they be shot?

Whether taken to extremes, or merely to it's logical on-topic conclusion, your argument wears thin unless the purpose is merely to justify the shooting of wolves.

Honestly, if you position is, "I hate wolves and they should all be shot on sight," I think we could just agree to disagree. I'm just confused as to where the moral equivalency line is drawn... introduced, non-native, non-livestock?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

You got me Grizz.....I have bias, as we all do. I think that we have common ground in the belief that illegal activity is not the answer to a political problem. However, I would be dishonest if I tried to act like I cared as much for wolves as I do other animals including those we hunt and eat. I anger when a deer gets poached because I like deer and it’s against the law. When a wolf gets poached, my only reservation is the law. 

My red herring argument was not meant to detract but more to put things back into perspective. I like your example of rolling through a stop sign. It ain’t murder........and neither is shooting a wolf. This is especially exasperated by the fact that I believe that the introduction of wolves is a moral crime against both nature and humankind committed by a small group of extremists with an agenda to destroy the western culture.————SS


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Great discussion SS. It's rare when people can have a disagreement on these forums and keep it an honest, respectful discussion. I'll respect that any day. Merry Christmas


----------

