# Amy, hoping you can clear it up.



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Amy, you are pretty informative in here, so I am thinking maybe you can be again. We all now know the Gov. tag sheep was killed. Seems pretty clear it was killed on the Nebo. Seems pretty clear the Gov. tag wasn't in the rotation for the Nebo this year. Springville seems pretty tight lipped, the guide WLH seems to have lost all the pics of this ram. So, when will the division be announcing charges? Or at the very least a press release as to why there won't be charges? The DWR is quick to post other poaching incidents, yet this one seems to be off the grid, can you inform us?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The DWR has some explainin' to do on this one.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Get Gephardt?


----------



## Natural Born Killer (Oct 29, 2015)

Amazing, I hope that this is Brought to everyones attention, and Explained to us as soon as possible, When the sheep was plugged at D.W R. office, the form was filled out stating were and when the ram was killed, horn measurements,hunter, guide Ect. so the facts are known. 

If this is true why didn't they just hunt Antelope Island, I believe that It is also closed to the Gov. tag, but what the hell..........


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

If they don't have to follow their own rules on the convention why would they worry about a silly ram?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Where are people getting information on this? I can't find anything.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Where are people getting information on this? I can't find anything.


Pictures were posted of the kill right after it happened, then when it was pointed out they hunted in a closed area, all of the pictures and stories quickly disappeared off the websites.

Cover-up!

-DallanC


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

backcountry said:


> Where are people getting information on this? I can't find anything.


Here's some reading for your entertainment.....

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/23714.html


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This one stinks. Hopefully the Utah public asks questions on this and demands not only an explanation, but an accountability from those in charge.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

The last rumor I have received on the ram indecent was that it was a DWR biologist that spilled the beans on the whereabouts of this ram and that information coming out of the southern region DWR office lead the outfitter to believe that the Nebo ram was fair game for his client.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

bigbr said:


> The last rumor I have received on the ram *indecent* was that...




But either way, I like it.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

bigbr said:


> The last rumor I have received on the ram indecent was that it was a DWR biologist that spilled the beans on the whereabouts of this ram and that information coming out of the southern region DWR office lead the outfitter to believe that the Nebo ram was fair game for his client.


IF that rumor is true, I hope it doesn't dissuade them from taking action. It shouldn't matter if a DWR officer gave the impression that ram was fair game. *It's the outfitters job to make sure the hunt is legal.* This one really does seem like an easy call...


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Not that it matters much, but I have been putting in for sheep tags in Utah for years and I had no idea that we had limitations on areas for governor tag buyers. I have been to a convention or two where the tag was auctioned off and the information at the time of sale was informed that you could hunt any area in the state where Rocky Mountain Bighorns are hunted between September first and December 31 of the year of auction won. Not sure if I was ever the state sportsman tag winner if I would have ever even bothered to look it up. Not saying it is right or wrong, but I do believe that professional should know their business. With that being said I do not think we should need to consult a lawyer every time we go hunting either. If you need to go to the CFR to find out the rules for hunting that is to much BS in my opinion.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Not that it matters much, ... I had no idea that we had limitations on areas for governor tag buyers.
> 
> .. Not sure if I was ever the state sportsman tag winner if I would have ever even bothered to look it up. Not saying it is right or wrong...
> 
> ..With that being said I do not think we should need to consult a lawyer every time we go hunting either. If you need to go to the CFR to find out the rules for hunting that is to much BS in my opinion.


I didn't know either. But I've never put in for a sheep hunt, so I have a good excuse for never looking at sheep regulations.

Not that it matters, but it's obvious that many other people did (and do) know that there are units that are off limits for the governor's tag.

Whether we need a lawyer to interpret the rules for us or not, it is still OUR responsibility to know and understand the rules that govern the game we pursue.

It's obvious from this situation that we, as sportsmen, have lost something along the way. Our ethics have changed. Our morals have lowered. We are driven by the need for recognition -- the pursuit of "trophy" animals have made all of us crazy. It's turning the fine sport of hunting into a commercial commodity driven by the almighty dollar.



Lucifer said:


> You can buy anything in this world for money


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

PBH said:


> It's obvious from this situation that we, as sportsmen, have lost something along the way. Our ethics have changed. Our morals have lowered. We are driven by the need for recognition -- the pursuit of "trophy" animals have made all of us crazy. It's turning the fine sport of hunting into a commercial commodity driven by the almighty dollar.


Orrrrrrr......maybe they just didn't read the fine print...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It absolutely is our individual responsibility to know what the laws are regarding any activity we are involved in pursuing, not just hunting. And I have zero doubt that the outfitter in question (Wade Lemon Hunting) knew very well that there was a rotation basis for the Central Mountains/Nebo/Wasatch West unit. Again, I have zero doubt that they knew they were violating the law.

Maybe memorizing the Code of Federal Regulations is a little much, but is going to the DWR's own webpage that defines the rules for these tags too much to expect? I think not...

https://wildlife.utah.gov/sportsman...57-41-conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html

Anyone holding a governor's tag or sportsmans tag that says "I didn't know" has absolutely no excuse, in my opinion.

Fact of the matter here is this: Either the hunter and outfitter need to pay the price for this, or the DWR does. A rare sheep was killed illegally, no matter how it is sliced or justified. If the authorities are not going to do anything to the hunter/outfitter, then the DWR needs to be accountable for their screw up. Period.

I mean, how many times can the DWR just flip their nose at the rest of us to cater to those that just buy the tags that should be available to the general public? First the expo fiasco where they violated the law and their own rules to stay in bed with SFW, now this. When will it end for this "public" agency?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

This story is just ridiculous. Too many questions - how... what... why... when... that the DNR/WLH need to answer.

Hey - I have a CWMU deer tag, anyone want to go with me to Antelope Island or the Henries and shoot a deer???


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Taking my inlaws out to the island next week, want me to scout for you?:mrgreen:


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

But on a more serious note, if this sheep tag debacle doesn't get the full weight of penalty (which must include a permanent confiscation of the sheep with no possibility of a buy back at auction) then the next governor's deer tag has great precedence to go to the island and get a deer. If you take the fine penalty of a trophy animal, and the average cost to buy the trophy back at the auction in March, then add that to the difference between the price tag on the island tag and the governor's tag, a guy could save ~$200k by doing just this and still get his island deer


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

CPAjeff said:


> This story is just ridiculous. Too many questions - how... what... why... when... that the DNR/WLH need to answer.
> 
> Hey - I have a CWMU deer tag, anyone want to go with me to Antelope Island or the Henries and shoot a deer???


----------



## cdbright (Aug 24, 2016)

i have a neighbor who said his buddy go the island tag for $350,000 he has been scouting and it is unbelievable the amount of trophies up there.


----------



## WEK (Dec 3, 2010)

willfish4food said:


> IF that rumor is true, I hope it doesn't dissuade them from taking action. It shouldn't matter if a DWR officer gave the impression that ram was fair game. *It's the outfitters job to make sure the hunt is legal.* This one really does seem like an easy call...


If it's true, it could make things MUCH more complicated under the right set of facts. Acting on the advice of, or information provided by, a government official is a valid defense under many circumstances. (Obviously, I don't know if that's the case here or not.) I recently worked with, and prevailed via plea agreement on behalf of, a defendant who was charged for improper professional licensing after relying on information from a state official that all his licensing was correct and legal. Ultimately the government saw the weakness in their case, balked, and copped a good deal to avoid trial.

The facts need to be just right for this to work out as a valid defense, but it is possible.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Bump

Any news?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I seriously doubt the DWR PR person will comment on what may be an active investigation. Probably need to call the DWR home office and speak to someone there (or the DWR officer over the Nebo unit).


-DallanC


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

There's literally no way the DWR would directly respond to this type of post. Nice try though.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

They are not going to respond here, and they won't respond to a phone call, either. My guess is they are hoping as few people as possible find out about this and wish it would just go away. 

The least they could do is acknowledge they are aware of the situation and are addressing it. But it is nothing but crickets. The point has been brought up before, but why such a difference in this case? The DWR publicizes poaching incidents all the time. They post them on their website. They ask for more information. They post results of catching poachers. But now we have what would be the highest profile poaching incident in Utah history, and they won't even acknowledge an investigation exists. 

I'm not saying people should call and flood the DWR (including the Director) with requests on this, but...


----------



## Groganite (Nov 14, 2012)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> There's literally no way the DWR would directly respond to this type of post. Nice try though.


I think it might be under "active investigation" and authorities might "not be able to comment"



willfish4food said:


> IF that rumor is true, I hope it doesn't dissuade them from taking action. It shouldn't matter if a DWR officer gave the impression that ram was fair game. *It's the outfitters job to make sure the hunt is legal.* This one really does seem like an easy call...


I see both sides to this story....your right its the hunters responsibility to know the rules. That being said, many responsible people give gov regulations an honest try to know and understand but need further assistance from Gov officials in charge of said rules. example not related to hunting is have you've ever looked into gold prospecting rules, mind you the charge for claim jumping (even simple panning or picking up a rock and putting it in your pocket) is a felony. So someone asks for help on a hunting boundary and where to locate the animal on said boundaries with a special tag that has special rules and the gamer gives him a bad location?

who really knows what happened other than the fly on the wall. 
guess the dwr will just have to change the rules to statewide hunting and abolish those nasty boundaries.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TS, 
Nice battle with Tri-state on MM over this issue.......

For what it's worth, I think you won!

That guy is a TROLL.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I probably shouldn't throw stones from my glass house, since a number of my posts on that were specifically to troll him. Sometimes it's fun to roll around in the poop, I guess. I am not sure there is any winning or losing with him, but I like watching him chase his own tail, so what can I say?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just heard and red the all involved in this incident have been CLEARED!

Case closed, swept under the rug,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:-x

Hope that its an untrue rummer.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

AMY????????

I drew a swan tag this year, with the tag is the card reminding me about harvest surveys and what happens if I don't. Guessing she got something similar.

I still can't get over that WLH "called" the southern office. Nebo is in the Central. The big shots are in SLC. Am I to believe that WLH doesn't know any of the brass in SLC? Why would you call the Southern office? Were they hoping to catch a biologist who doesn't know the rules in another unit so they had there defense? If there is an active investigation, why when called does the Springville office not just say they don't comment on an active investigation? The utter lack of anything tells me the backroom manuevering is ongoing, want to bet whether or not WLH is just letting the process work itself out, or do you thing they found some of those phone numbers for the brass in SLC?


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

CPAjeff said:


> This story is just ridiculous. Too many questions - how... what... why... when... that the DNR/WLH need to answer.
> 
> Hey - I have a CWMU deer tag, anyone want to go with me to Antelope Island or the Henries and shoot a deer???


Here are a couple nice ones out on the island for ya!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

muleydeermaniac said:


> Here are a couple nice ones out on the island for ya!


Man - those look awesome! I have a hard time deciding typical or nontypical, I think I'll take both of them. What do you have planned for this Saturday? I could probably buy you lunch or something for the "finder's fee." 

Goofy - I sure hope that rumor is untrue!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof, where did you read about this?

If the rumor is true, what will we do about it? 

Rumor? I would not hold your breath for charges on this one. I'm still waiting for what the DWR's public response to this will be...


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> Just heard and red the all involved in this incident have been CLEARED!
> 
> Case closed, swept under the rug,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:-x
> 
> Hope that its an untrue rummer.


I certainly hope the rumor is just that, but frankly it would not surprise me. If this does get swept under the rug, I've got a big ole kettle of tar on boil BYOF (bring your own feathers) and we'll revive some good ole fashioned justice


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

ShellyT, not doubting you in the slightest, but I sure hope you are wrong. 

Anybody else feel like a blitz campaign on the DWR's social media with the pictures and asking why nothing is getting done?


----------



## ShellyT (Sep 21, 2016)

DWR has said it is OK to post the letter I received from them. It is a tragedy all around and I do hope things like this can be avoided in the future but I did not feel they were avoiding my question at all. They were very prompt and cordial. And I asked to clear up any rumor surrounding it. I hope this helps. 

Hi Shelly,

We appreciate your concern on this Nebo ram topic and are happy to clarify the situation. To give a little background, rule R657-41-2(1)(k)(vi) states that the ?Central Mountain/Nebo/Wasatch West sheep unit is open to the Sportsmen permit holder on even number years and open to the Statewide Conservation permit holder on odd number years.? Because this is an even year, the statewide conservation permit holder was not permitted to hunt bighorn sheep on the Nebo unit. However, the statewide conservation permit (governor?s tag) holder did harvest a bighorn ram on the Nebo unit.

Shortly before the harvest, a photo with scenery that looked like the Nebo unit was posted to social media. Within minutes, the DWR reached out to the outfitter in an attempt to prevent the harvest, but the ram had already been killed. At that point, the case was turned over to law enforcement. As you can imagine, this is a sensitive issue with an associated investigation, so please forgive us for not being able to comment on it publicly until now.

Because the aforementioned rule affects only two people per year, we have historically opted to not include it in the guidebook. Instead, we send letters to both hunters, explaining the rule. Unfortunately, because of a personnel change this year, we cannot find proof that we sent an explanatory letter to the statewide conservation permit holder.

To further complicate the issue, the outfitter who was planning to guide the statewide conservation permit holder asked a Division employee if the Nebo was a legal unit for the client to hunt. That employee does not work in the region that oversees the Nebo unit and was unaware of the rule that requires the two hunters to alternate hunting years. Consequently, the employee told the outfitter that he believed it was legal.

The findings above came to light during a recent law enforcement investigation that was turned over to the county prosecutor. Because the Division did not accurately communicate the rule, the county prosecutor declined to prosecute the case.

We regret this situation and have taken a hard look at how we distribute information to hunters and to our own employees. We are working to ensure this type of incident does not happen again in the future. Hopefully, this clears up some rumors and misinformation out there. Feel free to share this letter on the forums you alluded to or with any concerned parties.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I've never been mailed the hunting regs when I've received a permit... yet I am still expected to know the rules / laws.


-DallanC


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Wow. Just. Wow.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense, that was drilled into my head my first year of law school. The fact that the rule is published as R657-41-2(1)(k)(vi) and is available to the public provides what is called "constructive notice" to everybody and means you are obligated to obey it. Doesn't matter if the law affects 1 person or 500, they have to know it. This is quite possibly even bigger excrement IMO than the contortions around the RMEF bid for the Expo.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well,
Looks like the inside info I received was correct......


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

I find it interesting that the hunter, the guides, the outfitter and the DWR employee supposedly did not know the applicable rules. However, if you simply google "utah conservation permit rules" the first hit is a link to R657-41: https://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/970-r657-41--conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html I wonder if this situation would have been handled differently if it did not involve the statewide governor's tag holder and a major guide service? Would the DWR and law enforcement show the same level of lenience if this was me or you?

Hawkeye


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

hawkeye said:


> I find it interesting that the hunter, the guides, the outfitter and the DWR employee supposedly did not know the applicable rules. However, if you simply google "utah conservation permit rules" the first hit is a link to R657-41: https://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/970-r657-41--conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html I wonder if this situation would have been handled differently if it did not involve the statewide governor's tag holder and a major guide service? Would the DWR and law enforcement show the same level of lenience if this was me or you?
> 
> Hawkeye


If you care to defend me for free and we get some crowdfunding to compensate me I'd be willing to give this a shot next month on my tag....

(that was a joke, because I know despite having excellent representation I would be completely fried)


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

So would this be a genius in the Utah county or Juab county prosecutor's office that decided to not prosecute?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

hawkeye said:


> I find it interesting that the hunter, the guides, the outfitter and the DWR employee supposedly did not know the applicable rules. However, if you simply google "utah conservation permit rules" the first hit is a link to R657-41: https://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/970-r657-41--conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html I wonder if this situation would have been handled differently if it did not involve the statewide governor's tag holder and a major guide service? Would the DWR and law enforcement show the same level of lenience if this was me or you?
> 
> Hawkeye


Hell no it would not have been handled the same! I've known about this that it would not be prosecuted for about a week. And it bothers me beyond belief!

If the outfitter didn't know about the rotation basis of the tag, why would they even ask if the unit was open? Of course they knew about it! And since when does the DWR have to mail out the rules regarding a tag for the law to apply?

The letter REALLY minimizes the screw up here by the DWR. Like...REALLY minimizes it. 'Because of a staffing change, Vanilla gets to kill a bison on the Henry Mountains this year." I don't have a tag for that hunt, but neither did this hunter. And I have not received a letter telling me I couldn't, nor is there a section in the guidebook stating so. This is friggin ridiculous!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

If the above is true (which is what I am hearing too) then this is ridiculous. I've thought about this for a bit and still come to the conclusion that I've never been more disappointed in the UDWR. I've been an apologist for the UDWR for years, but this is inexcusable. 

The Wasatch/Nebo, Avintaquin should be made off-limits to all but the unit's tag holder. Period. If they are not capable of managing rotations (even though it is written in RULE) then there should be NO rotations. 

I have talked with the UDWR reps at the front desk in Salt Lake many times over the years and they have been wrong more than they are right. This case says that I can go off their word and not follow the laws managing our wildlife.

Disappointed......


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

That's it! I'm now officially looking for a +400" bull anywhere in the state! Let me know if you have found one and I'm sure we can sort it out with the DWR later even though my tag is for the Panguitch unit--I didn't get a letter with my tag saying that though, so you know how it can be confusing.

Just be sure to give me time to turn my phone off before posting to social media where I'm actually going to go hunting so I can be sure not to get the DWR's call trying to stop me before the bull is on the ground. 

What a complete joke.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Just keep voting for these incestuous lying hypocritical politicians that go to church every Sunday and are nothing more than sanctimonious scumbags


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Sportsmans tag holder should file a lawsuit against the DWR, after all the ram is supposed to be the new state record right? It should have been theirs.


-DallanC


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

So, if I understand this properly, the DWR is admitting that they were both incompetent and careless in communications with the tag holder and outfitter. Therefore, no criminal prosecution and the incident goes away. Am I missing something? This doesn't generate a lot of confidence in the division. 


Also, does it seem to you that there is more to this than has been presented?


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

So if the prosecutor doesn't feel the outfitter, who's job includes knowing the rules, is at fault, and they don't believe the hunter, who should also know the rules for THEIR tag, is at fault. Who's fault do they think it is, and what are they planning on doing about it. Clearly these are lucrative and very exclusive tags. This should not be the kind of thing you get to say, "Oops, I guess we'll get it right next time." 

This whole thing reeks of special interests and special treatment!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This is the expo fiasco all over again. I don't know how to make it happen, but it's time to clean house.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I was thinking about this and the expo and I think this might be blatantly worse. It is something so cut and dry, with even fewer "moving parts" so to speak and zero room for subjectivity. It is a strict liability statute for crying out loud, no need for mens rea just simply did X occur!


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

ShellyT said:


> DWR has said it is OK to post the letter I received from them. It is a tragedy all around and I do hope things like this can be avoided in the future but I did not feel they were avoiding my question at all. They were very prompt and cordial. And I asked to clear up any rumor surrounding it. I hope this helps.
> 
> Hi Shelly,
> 
> ...


So, the DWR is able to spend time on social media - but cannot get the tag holder the right information? I mean, within minutes of a person posting on instagram/facebook they were calling the guy. They see the picture, they identify the location of the picture, they find out who took the picture, and then they call the person with the picture. Within minutes, that is some Ninja stuff right there.

Sending letters is dumb. If you do not get the letter then you can claim ignorance. Not putting it in the guide book is also dumb. Do you really save that much money in printing costs to eliminate one page. Also, there are only two people to send letters too - how can you not find proof? Is the office that incompetent?

The outfitter asked a DWR employee and the DWR employee gave him the wrong answer. LOL. I on occasion interact with federal employees enforcing mine laws and when they do not know there go to is "What does the standard say?" The excuse that the employee didn't know seems fishy. If it isn't your region, then why not take the 10 seconds to google it.

Look , whether or not the DWR is at fault on this they should still do the right thing. The outfitter, the shooter, the DWR employee should all be accountable to the law.

Utah should do the same thing that Wyoming does with it's super tag. A unit has to give out a certain amount of permits in order for the super tag hunter to hunt the unit. It should be that simple.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Still crickets on an official response from the DWR, unless I've missed their press release taking accountability for this and admitting they kowtow to big money hunts and couldn't care less what the rest of us think...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I think someone should file a civil suit against the hunter and the outfitter (and maybe the DWR too!).

still nothing from Gephardt?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Anyone on Facebook that gets the Utah DWR stuff? 

I found it interesting that today they put a post out about poaching and it is up to us to protect Utah's wildlife. Feel free to let them know how you feel.


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

So I haven't seen a response from Amy on this yet, maybe I missed it. I would bet a lot of money she has been told to not comment about any of this from the powers that be.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

muleydeermaniac said:


> So I haven't seen a response from Amy on this yet, maybe I missed it. I would bet a lot of money she has been told to not comment about any of this from the powers that be.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

lolz


-DallanC


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Anyone on Facebook that gets the Utah DWR stuff?
> 
> I found it interesting that today they put a post out about poaching and it is up to us to protect Utah's wildlife. Feel free to let them know how you feel.


I know I'm not the only one posting about this issue on DWR posts the past couple days, but thanks for the heads up on yet another one I need to go hit up.


----------



## NVDuckin (Apr 18, 2016)

ShellyT said:


> DWR has said it is OK to post the letter I received from them. It is a tragedy all around and I do hope things like this can be avoided in the future but I did not feel they were avoiding my question at all. They were very prompt and cordial. And I asked to clear up any rumor surrounding it. I hope this helps.
> 
> Hi Shelly,
> 
> ...


This is absolutely insane that they would let something like this go. I guarantee if I stepped out of the duck blind with three hen mallards they would nail me for it.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

It has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with the almighty corrupt $$

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

I have been told to my face by a DWR officer that it is all about the $$$

Same guy also told me that if I'm out hunting and I see a cougar I should shoot shovel and shut up.

Hmm........ I guess now I can get off scott free if I take him up on that advice because he told me it was ok, even suggested it in fact.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Its official....

https://wildlife.utah.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1933


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The email that ShellyT received was indeed from us. We've also posted the response on our website.

My apologies for the delayed response to this thread. I was out of the office all last week and part of this week.

I understand that many of you are upset about this incident, and I understand why. We are upset too - this shouldn't have happened. We are taking multiple corrective measures to ensure that it doesn't happen again.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Amy, thanks so much for the response. We do appreciate all you do. I dont believe this should have been directed to you, but it happened and you are very forthcoming. Thank you.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Amy said:


> The email that ShellyT received was indeed from us. We've also posted the response on our website.
> 
> My apologies for the delayed response to this thread. I was out of the office all last week and part of this week.
> 
> I understand that many of you are upset about this incident, and I understand why. We are upset too - this shouldn't have happened. We are taking multiple corrective measures to ensure that it doesn't happen again.


No offense to you Amy but this is simply the good old money buys everything Hillary Clinton defense....the person committed the crime but because they cannot prove "intent" there is nothing to prosecute. This just goes to show you that corruption is alive and well in Utah among the so called "good people". As far as I know, ignorance of the law has never been and still is not a justifiable reason for not being prosecuted. Follow the almighty dollars people.....


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Hate to be the devil's pragmatist here folks but I think the county prosecutor made the right call on this one; *and let's all be clear, the decision to try the case is squarely with the Prosecutor*. Like you, I think what happened is morally repugnant but look at it from the prosecutor's point of view.

First and foremost you have two possible defendants (hunter and outfitter) and we know that the hunter has the means to provide some outstanding legal defense counsel--the best money can buy I would think-O,-. Not too sure regarding the guide but try one, gotta try both.

You have a Byzantine wildlife management system that literally makes my head spin sometimes and I'm an accountant. Convincing a rural jury in Juab county that 'huntin' regs are overly complicated wouldn't be too darn hard.

Add in the two failures of the DWR-> failure to notify and failure to provide correct information.

You guys keep hammering on the DWR regarding them "getting off", it's not the DWR's call--hammer on the prosecutor if you disagree...hell, go get an appointment with them, write em letters but this is the law.

A good defense team would eat this up. It's a crap sandwich guys but in the real world, with our legal system I would put the odds at a conviction between slim and none.

But at least in the (internet) court of public opinion we can hang-em high and call BS. Get a Rope!! :grin:


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

So the DWR admits its negligence, its failure to properly inform the hunters of the law (which I feel is the responsibility of the hunter prior to getting a tag but whatever), taking that stance opens the door wide open for the Sportsmens tag holder to start a lawsuit as they can show demonstrable loss. That would certainly bring things into the general public awareness... What did the gov tag sell for? Thats what the ram is worth... and what the sportsmens tag holder could try for.

Its an utterly stupid situation.


-DallanC


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> No offense to you Amy but this is simply the good old money buys everything Hillary Clinton defense....the person committed the crime but because they cannot prove "intent" there is nothing to prosecute. This just goes to show you that corruption is alive and well in Utah among the so called "good people". As far as I know, ignorance of the law has never been and still is not a justifiable reason for not being prosecuted. Follow the almighty dollars people.....


So are you going to redistribute the wealth in this country so we can all afford the same level of legal defense?

Redistribution of wealth is a hallmark of the democratic platform--are you saying you are a supporter of Hillary? :grin:

If it's not that then you must want to upend the legal system in the US maybe? Why not schedule an appointment with the county prosecutor and offer to provide material support regarding the case or get a petition going. Last time I checked we are free to petition the government all we want. Of course it's easier for all of us to complain on the internet which is fun.

I'm going to go ahead and call it--> +100 UWN credibility points to the first complainer on this thread that meets with the prosecutor to let them know how upset you are with their decision. Of course we will need proof...so a selfie with you and the prosecutor will be required, otherwise ya'll are just blowing smoke. Hell, the prosecutor probably doesn't even know there is a rebellion brewing on the 17th most popular Utah hunting site on the web :grin:


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Airborne said:


> Hate to be the devil's pragmatist here folks but I think the county prosecutor made the right call on this one; *and let's all be clear, the decision to try the case is squarely with the Prosecutor*. Like you, I think what happened is morally repugnant but look at it from the prosecutor's point of view.
> 
> First and foremost you have two possible defendants (hunter and outfitter) and we know that the hunter has the means to provide some outstanding legal defense counsel--the best money can buy I would think-O,-. Not too sure regarding the guide but try one, gotta try both.
> 
> ...


I take serious issue with the emphasized portions of your analysis. First, can you show me where the DWR has a legal obligation to specifically notify a tag holder of all applicable laws? Second, assuming such obligation exists, how do you get away from the constructive notice issue of a published statute? Constructive notice is sufficient notice that a reasonable individual knew or should have known...

Second, on the failure to provide correct information. That is very easy to explain to your rural Juab county jury, or as my torts professor would call them "the 12 bozos from the DMV who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty". Simple, I ask the jury to consider this in opening/closing arguments: "Members of the jury. If you call City Hall in Corinne, UT and ask an employee there if you are allowed to drive 25 mph on 700 N in Nephi, and the employee says you can, do you think that you'll get out of a ticket for speeding in a school zone by telling the officer that the so and so in Corinne said it was ok? Does it matter that the Corinne employee was unaware of Juab High School being located there?"

I think even the 12 bozos who think the huntin' rules are dern confustering would see that you can't reasonably rely on the word of a regional bio from another area of the state to get around the clear "in even numbered years the sportsman tag holder can hunt the Timp/Wasatch West/Nebo" unit.

I do think that the prosecutor dropped the ball on this by not going after either the poacher tag holder/trigger puller or the poacher outfitter.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> I take serious issue with the emphasized portions of your analysis. First, can you show me where the DWR has a legal obligation to specifically notify a tag holder of all applicable laws? Second, assuming such obligation exists, how do you get away from the constructive notice issue of a published statute? Constructive notice is sufficient notice that a reasonable individual knew or should have known...
> 
> Second, on the failure to provide correct information. That is very easy to explain to your rural Juab county jury, or as my torts professor would call them "the 12 bozos from the DMV who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty". Simple, I ask the jury to consider this in opening/closing arguments: "Members of the jury. If you call City Hall in Corinne, UT and ask an employee there if you are allowed to drive 25 mph on 700 N in Nephi, and the employee says you can, do you think that you'll get out of a ticket for speeding in a school zone by telling the officer that the so and so in Corinne said it was ok? Does it matter that the Corinne employee was unaware of Juab High School being located there?"
> 
> ...


All you need to do is get copies of the bank statement of the DA's campaign account. Of course, cash is very hard to track when it comes into an account or someone's back pocket. This has pay off written all over it so much that a blind deaf person could see and hear it.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> I take serious issue with the emphasized portions of your analysis. First, can you show me where the DWR has a legal obligation to specifically notify a tag holder of all applicable laws? Second, assuming such obligation exists, how do you get away from the constructive notice issue of a published statute? Constructive notice is sufficient notice that a reasonable individual knew or should have known...
> 
> Second, on the failure to provide correct information. That is very easy to explain to your rural Juab county jury, or as my torts professor would call them "the 12 bozos from the DMV who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty". Simple, I ask the jury to consider this in opening/closing arguments: "Members of the jury. If you call City Hall in Corinne, UT and ask an employee there if you are allowed to drive 25 mph on 700 N in Nephi, and the employee says you can, do you think that you'll get out of a ticket for speeding in a school zone by telling the officer that the so and so in Corinne said it was ok? Does it matter that the Corinne employee was unaware of Juab High School being located there?"
> 
> ...


I'm on your side Johnny!!!

The entire point of my little contribution here is point out that the prosecutor makes the call and that's based on if they can get a conviction. I don't think he could, apparently you do--*SO SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT WITH HIM AND EXPLAIN YOURSELF!!!*

Maybe you can convince him, maybe he can convince you. Be sure to post the selfie with the prosecutor though and probably wear a suit--does anybody on this forum own a suit????:grin:


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> All you need to do is get copies of the bank statement of the DA's campaign account. Of course, cash is very hard to track when it comes into an account or someone's back pocket. This has pay off written all over it so much that a blind deaf person could see and hear it.


I like you LostLouisianian, but you should cut with the accusations unless you have proof. I leave you with a quote from the late great Christopher Hitchens

*"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"*


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

The only way this will ever get prosecuted is if public opinion demands it. I would encourage everyone to write to the newspapers and anyone who has any outlets to get the word out and let them know of this travesty and see if we can get enough public outrage to make this prosecution happen.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Airborne said:


> I'm on your side Johnny!!!
> 
> The entire point of my little contribution here is point out that the prosecutor makes the call and that's based on if they can get a conviction. I don't think he could, apparently you do--*SO SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT WITH HIM AND EXPLAIN YOURSELF!!!*
> 
> Maybe you can convince him, maybe he can convince you. Be sure to post the selfie with the prosecutor though and probably wear a suit--does anybody on this forum own a suit????:grin:


I get that you think something is rotten, but I don't think we're on the same side if you think there is legitimacy to the "we can't prove that we sent her a specific letter with those details". The whole point of constructive notice is that it applies to everybody. And yes, if I have the luck to kill a bull on the Panguitch (or a giant somewhere else, maybe?...Guys, I'm all ears!) with time left over you can bet I'm going to try to get some face time to understand better why the prosecutor felt he couldn't bring a case and if appropriate, express why I think that is total crap. I'll think about the suit, but I would rather leave it in my closet for now!


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Airborne said:


> I like you LostLouisianian, but you should cut with the accusations unless you have proof. I leave you with a quote from the late great Christopher Hitchens
> 
> *"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"*


Well I know how these things work. I have several great lifelong friends who are judges and DA's as well as many family that have worked high up in state and federal government such as governors and senators. I have seen these sorts of things first hand. Sorry but I know that there are hidden reasons for not prosecuting than those "officially" cited. To think there is not graft and corruption in this state is to ignore reality.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> I get that you think something is rotten, but I don't think we're on the same side if you think there is legitimacy to the "we can't prove that we sent her a specific letter with those details". The whole point of constructive notice is that it applies to everybody. And yes, if I have the luck to kill a bull on the Panguitch (or a giant somewhere else, maybe?...Guys, I'm all ears!) with time left over you can bet I'm going to try to get some face time to understand better why the prosecutor felt he couldn't bring a case and if appropriate, express why I think that is total crap. I'll think about the suit, but I would rather leave it in my closet for now!


I didn't make my point clear enough--I would like to see a this go to trial, I don't have all of the information needed to hang the hunter and outfitter--you believe that you do--that's fine. Again so everyone understands: *I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT GO TO TRIAL *

I listed a few reasons why the prosecutor may have determined to not proceed--I maintain that I don't think he could get a conviction upon the *very *limited knowledge of the situation I have--we disagree, that's fine.

Also keep in mind that you don't know what you don't know meaning that the prosecutor has much more information in his possession than Johnny has. There is a reason he didn't move forward--I contend that you should ask him why. Return and report when you do :grin:


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> Well I know how these things work. I have several great lifelong friends who are judges and DA's as well as many family that have worked high up in state and federal government such as governors and senators. I have seen these sorts of things first hand. Sorry but I know that there are hidden reasons for not prosecuting than those "officially" cited. To think there is not graft and corruption in this state is to ignore reality.


Yes evil exists in the world, yes there is corruption. The difference between you and I is that I don't default to conspiracy theories when things don't go the way I wish they would. If you would have met with the prosecutor, gathered as much information as possible, talk to all parties involved, delved deeply into this beyond an internet forum and gathered facts to support your position I would be all on board. But you did none of these things and you make accusations based on nothing but a feeling or an experience in your past. Every situation is different, and must be looked at individually.

What you are doing is not helpful to society or yourself. It's the arm chair quarterback which lacks cred.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

The only evidence needed is fact and the facts are indisputable


----------



## Natural Born Killer (Oct 29, 2015)

Just a thought,
Let's, pretend that I was a world famous, hunting guide, with ads in major hunting publications, and worked the shows from S.C.I to the hunting expo for say the last 30 years plus, and guided high dollar tags every year, sheep, elk , deer ,antelope, bears , mt. lion ect multiple hunts each year , You would think that I should be able to have a somewhat basic knowledge of the hunting units regulations and open or closed units for the last few years, just for my clients peace of mind. Oh then I woke up........ money Talks , Proof in point, 

I hope that this does not set a precedent,


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Natural Born Killer said:


> Just a thought,
> Let's, pretend that I was a world famous, hunting guide, with ads in major hunting publications, and worked the shows from S.C.I to the hunting expo for say the last 30 years plus, and guided high dollar tags every year, sheep, elk , deer ,antelope, bears , mt. lion ect multiple hunts each year , You would think that I should be able to have a somewhat basic knowledge of the hunting units regulations and open or closed units for the last few years, just for my clients peace of mind. Oh then I woke up........ money Talks , Proof in point,
> 
> I hope that this does not set a precedent,


In some sick twisted way, I'd kind of like it to set a precedent---for now. I want to see the gov tag holder try to get an Antelope Island buck and then claim this same defense--shouldn't work and probably wouldn't because the DWR didn't make the $300k additional off the statewide tag that they did for the $420k AI tag. Then, you'd have a rich individual with the funds, pride, and means to fight the DWR on it and maybe get something "fixed".


----------



## allent (May 6, 2015)

Oh hell it just keeps getting deeper and deeper. I went to Wade Lemon Hunting .com and was looking around there Web page. If you hit the partnership tab the first thing that pops up is United steel supply. Guess who is a owner of United Steel Supply? None other than Wil Waldrip. The husband of the hunter that killed the nebo ram.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> In some sick twisted way, I'd kind of like it to set a precedent---for now. I want to see the gov tag holder try to get an Antelope Island buck and then claim this same defense--shouldn't work and probably wouldn't because the DWR didn't make the $300k additional off the statewide tag that they did for the $420k AI tag. Then, you'd have a rich individual with the funds, pride, and means to fight the DWR on it and maybe get something "fixed".


I will defer to you legal eagles for assessing the viability of possible actions, but couldn't the rightful Nebo/Wasatch tag holder and their outfitter (if any) bring legal action against the DWR, Wade lemon Hunting, and the hunter for damages? Similar to the Expo fiasco, only the aggrieved party (RMEF then/correct tag holder now) really had a legal leg to stand on for redress?

In thinking about this today and reading the official DWR response, I think Airborne is right. It would be hard to get a conviction if the DWR is an unwilling witness and eager to provide excuses for the defendants. (Why they are doing this is the question I would love to know more than anything.) Litigation by the regular tag holder is probably the only way that any semblance of justice will be served here.

The saddest part of this to me is that ,even if nothing further happens with this, the DWR is hemorrhaging credibility with the public on each of these episodes, and this has to adversely affect their ability to work on their mission and with the public they serve.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I do not think there is any type of valid claim the sportsman tag holder or the unit tag holder could bring. Hunting actually has several cases in case law where person A kills an animal person B was chasing. Basically, unless the sportsman holder had significantly wounded the ram and was in hot pursuit could they argue a right to the ram. Since no right, they've suffered no real loss, as the courts don't see the loss of the chance to chase it as sufficient loss. Ferae naturae and the nature of beasts to roam are the things that come up.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Karl would know how to decipher this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Badin (Dec 18, 2015)

Prosecutors and courts are barely able to function in keeping dirt bags off the streets, so I get the da's call to devote resources to more pressing needs. I remember unsuccessfully trying this approach with a game warden who nailed me for fishing too close to a fish ladder. That was one mean eyed son of a gun who was willing to devote all legal resources to make sure I would forever know the regs. God bless that old goat.


----------



## Rspeters (Apr 4, 2013)

allent said:


> Oh hell it just keeps getting deeper and deeper. I went to Wade Lemon Hunting .com and was looking around there Web page. If you hit the partnership tab the first thing that pops up is United steel supply. Guess who is a owner of United Steel Supply? None other than Wil Waldrip. The husband of the hunter that killed the nebo ram.


Not sure why this would be a big deal. Someone who knows a guide, uses that guide for a hunt...nothing crazy there, unless I'm missing something. Now, if either the hunter or the guide had connections to someone high up at the DWR, that would be a different story.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> Karl would know how to decipher this
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He doesn't know about this thread as everyone's on ignore.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Natural Born Killer said:


> Just a thought,
> Let's, pretend that I was a world famous, hunting guide, with ads in major hunting publications, and worked the shows from S.C.I to the hunting expo for say the last 30 years plus, and guided high dollar tags every year, sheep, elk , deer ,antelope, bears , mt. lion ect multiple hunts each year , *You would think that I should be able to have a somewhat basic knowledge of the hunting units regulations and open or closed units* for the last few years, just for my clients peace of mind. Oh then I woke up........ money Talks , Proof in point,
> 
> I hope that this does not set a precedent,


I don't have proof of this, but I have zero doubt WLH knew about the rotation basis and knew they couldn't hunt that unit this year. As a gov tag holder, knowing you have statewide access, if you were unaware of the rotation, why would you know to even ask? They e been around the block enough. They are not dumb. They knew what was happening. Just my opinion.

Giving the highest level of benefit of the doubt to the DWR employee involved, here is how I envision this conversation going:

WLH: Man, there is this incredible sheep on Nebo. The tag holders are lucky to chase that ram. 
DWR: Dude, you're guiding the gov tag holder. Why don't YOU go kill that ram?
WLH: Wait, you're saying we can hunt Nebo?
DWR: Yeah, why wouldn't you be able to?
WLH: No reason. Just glad we have that cleared up...

I can come up with much more nefarious options, but no matter what, I believe WLH was aware of what they were doing.

This whole situation really bothers me. The public trust in our DWR right now is so unbelievably low, and they just don't even care. They would rather keep cashing the checks big money hunts bring in, consequences or OIL animals illegally killed be damned, than serve the Utah public. They hold all the cards. They know we won't stop hunting, no matter what. They know we'lol continue to buy tags, continue to turn in poachers that they can selectively prosecute, and will continue to allow them to exist, no matter what they do. They know that because we live for the hunt, and we care about the animals, we will do our part, and they can kowtow to big money. It is a sad, sad state of affairs. I wish I knew how we could change it.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> If you care to defend me for free and we get some crowdfunding to compensate me I'd be willing to give this a shot next month on my tag....
> 
> (that was a joke, because I know despite having excellent representation I would be completely fried)


 "Have you any money? You can buy anything in this world with money." -Satan


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I don't have proof of this, but I have zero doubt WLH knew about the rotation basis and knew they couldn't hunt that unit this year. As a gov tag holder, knowing you have statewide access, if you were unaware of the rotation, *why would you know to even ask*?


And, to add even more: why would you ask someone from a region outside of the area you are asking about?? I would really be curious to know who it was that he asked -- it could have been anyone from a fish biologist to a habitat specialist. If the person who was asked the question does not have expertise in that field [sheep management], then why should their answer hold any weight?

if the person does have some expertise in the field of bighorn sheep management, then he/she should have had enough sense to answer the question by saying "that's not my region. You should ask someone in that region.".

However, I imagine the question was asked very similarly to how Vanilla envisioned it as well...



Vanilla said:


> Giving the highest level of benefit of the doubt to the DWR employee involved, here is how I envision this conversation going:
> 
> WLH: Man, there is this incredible sheep on Nebo. The tag holders are lucky to chase that ram.
> DWR: Dude, you're guiding the gov tag holder. Why don't YOU go kill that ram?
> ...


This reminds me of that new state record brook trout that was taken to the Central region for identification, verified, and published on Facebook as a new record. It was then that the Southern region guys saw it and notified our friends up North that the fish was in fact a splake. Sometimes the DWR employees need to know when to call and ask for a second opinion.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> This whole situation really bothers me. The public trust in our DWR right now is so unbelievably low, and they just don't even care. They would rather keep cashing the checks big money hunts bring in, consequences or OIL animals illegally killed be damned, than serve the Utah public. They hold all the cards. They know we won't stop hunting, no matter what. They know we'lol continue to buy tags, continue to turn in poachers that they can selectively prosecute, and will continue to allow them to exist, no matter what they do. They know that because we live for the hunt, and we care about the animals, we will do our part, and they can kowtow to big money. It is a sad, sad state of affairs. I wish I knew how we could change it.


 I'm with you Vanilla - I can't believe that it would appear that everyone involved is getting off scot free. No way that would be the case if it were the every day hunter. Money does indeed speak, and I have a feeling, there's lots of it getting shoved at the DWR under the table.

This plus the Expo fiasco has me losing complete faith in the leadership at DWR. The on-the-ground employees are not to be faulted, but their leadership is just flat out dishonest and untrustworthy. So, the gov tag holder kills a trophy ram in the wrong unit that is thought to be the next state record and NOTHING happens to ANYONE??? Come on.

This may have pushed me over the edge with respect to Gov. Herbert. I was willing to overlook the Expo and State Lands transfer (to a degree) because I thought he would be better than Weinholtz. Now, I am not sure of that at all. People should be held accountable, and the fact that no one is here is disgraceful. Correct me, but the head at DWR is an appointed position by the governor, correct?

I will definitely submit a letter to the editor of the Tribune and Deseret News explaining this situation so the general public gets tuned in to this. Letters of protest will also be submitted to the governor's office, the DWR, and my state representative and senator. I will also follow up with my senator about the supposed audit of the Expo contract award. I encourage everyone to do something similar. If we only grump about it here within hunting circles, nothing will change - although I do agree that it's more fun to gripe about it here!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Shame on the DWR.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

What would be funny is getting some shirts printed up that people can wear to the expo take turns standing next to the ram if its there so it shows up in every picture people take. 


-DallanC


----------



## moabxjeeper (Dec 18, 2012)

What this really needs to get more attention is a name, like Harambe and Cecil. People seem to remember those.

Any votes for Ralphy the Ram?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

moabxjeeper said:


> What this really needs to get more attention is a name, like Harambe and Cecil. People seem to remember those.
> 
> Any votes for Ralphy the Ram?


#DOFRTR, #restinpeacesweetprince. # ralphywasnotjustaram


----------



## moabxjeeper (Dec 18, 2012)

martymcfly73 said:


> #DOFRTR, #restinpeacesweetprince. # ralphywasnotjustaram


Ralphy died for your sins


----------

