# Watch today's Wildlife Board meeting



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Today's Utah Wildlife Board meeting just began.

If you're interested, please see the agenda and watch the meeting online.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

I’m particularly excited about agenda item #9, I can’t wait to see him try to talk his way out of that.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Well topics 7, 8 and 9 appear to be worth listening in on.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

...


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Hey you guys cut the feed right as it was getting good!! You can’t do that!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Erik's attorney seems to have watched too many courtroom movies - man, that dude is theatrical. 

Best line, "This case has caused Mr. Van Woerkom loose MILLIONS of dollars!"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

:rotfl:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I gave up even trying to listen to it. Most of the speakers were so far away from the mics that you could barely hear them. 

I got to where they put the map up and then gave up.

But to their uncredit it also happens during the regular meetings. I think that if they are going to allow the public to actually watch it as it is happening they need a sound man that knows what they are actually doing.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

This is like a terrible mid day soap opera, only better! :smile:


----------



## Humpy (Apr 30, 2018)

Anyone see the end of this? I had to shut it off at 5.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

They are in deliberation right now. Looks like the DWR had a phuck up on their end and submitted false information on their suspension hearing documents, which caused false info to spread about him regarding his prior issues with the law. For that, I bet they terminate the suspension or reduce it significantly. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see a lawsuit against the DWR for personal damages come from this in the near future.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Very interesting livestream - thanks Amy!


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

I was wrong. They sustained the original suspension.


----------



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

I only watched about half the proceeding but I thought like sheep that they would at least reduce the suspension some. 
I have to say if i had done the exact same thing he did as an anonymous hunter I bet it would be a different outcome.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

The original link isn’t working. Amy, do you have the link to the recording?


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)




----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

sheepassassin said:


> They are in deliberation right now. Looks like the DWR had a phuck up on their end and submitted false information on their suspension hearing documents, which caused false info to spread about him regarding his prior issues with the law. For that, I bet they terminate the suspension or reduce it significantly. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a lawsuit against the DWR for personal damages come from this in the near future.


What a charade! Since the longer than usual 2-year suspension was based off false information, I don't see how they could uphold it. Wow. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem right in my book.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

The person in question said weeks ago that their privileges were being re-instated.

Maybe they had an "in", and that person failed?


I have watched a lot of these, but have not seen one like this. Do we traditionally do this for all wildlife instances, or only those who make profit off the infractions? That's not even a knock at Erik, but this seemed odd.

It is weird to me for there to be an attempt at a case for anyone who makes money off wildlife, to have less sentence. I personally hold these people to a higher standard (The NEBO ram still pisses me off so bad). I would actually think the opposite. You make TV shows and IG money off these animals? I'm making an example. You guide people where you aren't supposed to for OIAL animals? Making an example. 

I am surprised to see the board uphold something.


EDIT: I could have missed something in my above comments. I went to watch and saw it's 6 hours - I'm not that curious unfortunately.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Somebody give me some more background. What was he alleged to have done and what did the DWR do or have that wasn't legit evidence against him?


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

What was funny to me, was not one time did it cross erik or his attorneys mind, that maybe he isn’t as ‘liked’ in the hunting community as he thinks he is? He was convinced that the person who caught him trespassing was the only one who could have possibly been the one posting all the facts about the case on social media and informing his sponsors of his actions. There’s lots of guys out there who can’t stand him that shared his court documents and emailed or called sponsors. Erik isn’t nearly as liked as he loved to believe he is. Just about everyone I know who’s dealt with the guy said they can’t stand him.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

wyoming2utah said:


> Somebody give me some more background. What was he alleged to have done and what did the DWR do or have that wasn't legit evidence against him?


He was convicted of two different class b misdemeanors of trespassing while engaging in a hunting related activity (not sure what the actual legal jargon is...) on private property in 2017. Also received a warning citation for trespassing on same property in either 2007 or 2012 . . . I can't remember correctly which year now.

Due to the convictions, he lost his licensing privileges in Utah for 22 months.

The DWR had plenty of legit evidence against him - which is more-likely-than-not why the WB upheld his suspension of 22 months.

Erik and his attorney tried to make several different points in the hearing - including, but not limited to, that the property wasn't properly marked, Erik's OnXMap service didn't properly portray the boundaries of the private property, and that the 22 month suspension would cause an undue hardship on his livelihood and family due to Erik's income stream being hunting related.

Pretty interesting stuff!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

sheepassassin said:


> What was funny to me, was not one time did it cross erik or his attorneys mind, that maybe he isn't as 'liked' in the hunting community as he thinks he is? He was convinced that the person who caught him trespassing was the only one who could have possibly been the one posting all the facts about the case on social media and informing his sponsors of his actions. There's lots of guys out there who can't stand him that shared his court documents and emailed or called sponsors. Erik isn't nearly as liked as he loved to believe he is. Just about everyone I know who's dealt with the guy said they can't stand him.


Shaun, you wouldn't happen to have another login name of "moosemeat" would you????


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

sheepassassin said:


> There's lots of guys out there who can't stand him that shared his court documents and emailed or called sponsors. Erik isn't nearly as liked as he loved to believe he is.


You were one of those people. Definitely not just a DWR thing here with the criticism of this guy and his actions in the public forum.

If his livelihood depended upon his ability to continue hunting, he should have been extra careful in knowing and following the rules associated with that. I have a license that I hold that is required for my continued employment in my chosen field. If I did something to lose that license, simply stating my ability to provide for my family is being taken away is not going to be good enough to keep my license. So I work really hard to not do those things that will prevent me from holding said license. He is not unique in his chosen field of employment on this, and its unfortunate that he disregarded the rules and laws governing his ability to maintain that license. I sincerely feel bad for his family and others associated with him that this situation undoubtedly negatively impacted. (And will continue to negatively impact.) Hopefully it makes people think twice before labeling things "victimless" crimes.

I have not watched the board meeting. Maybe I'll skip through it all to the exciting parts at the end sometime soon.


----------



## elkantlers (Feb 27, 2014)

I wonder if OnX will be a sponsor in the Future.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I lied.. I got caught up watching it. Not as much for the individual case, but the process of this got me hooked.

I am not done listening but am happy to share final thoughts, if anyone cares.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I've tried to listen to bits and pieces here and there, for the same reason. They are having a mini trial, and that stuff is my jam. 

His attorney's mad dog stare down of the witnesses he clearly didn't like probably wouldn't go over well in a real court room, although I'd love to be there to watch in front of the right judge if he were to try!


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the law (discussed in a different thread) if the land isn't posted or cultivated, you can legally hunt on it. You have to leave immediately if asked, however.

It didn't seem like the prosecution proved that the land was properly posted. They showed one picture of a no trespassing sign, but they admitted it was in the middle of the property, so he could have missed that sign. The land isn't posted at the corners or borders as shown by the videos the defendant provided, so how is it possible he was convicted?


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

My other thought is the central area representative (from Orem) openly admitted he was friends with the main witness in the prosecution. I don't see how he could be impartial and he should have removed himself from the appeal process. I don't know Erik or anything about Muley Freak. He could be an outstanding guy or a total jerk. Either way, everyone deserves a fair trial/appeal.


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

My understanding is that this was his second time trespassing this property. And he had been warned before. So he new where he was and what he was doing.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

brisket said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the law (discussed in a different thread) if the land isn't posted or cultivated, you can legally hunt on it. You have to leave immediately if asked, however.
> 
> It didn't seem like the prosecution proved that the land was properly posted. They showed one picture of a no trespassing sign, but they admitted it was in the middle of the property, so he could have missed that sign. The land isn't posted at the corners or borders as shown by the videos the defendant provided, so how is it possible he was convicted?


The actual trial, the camera man testified that they knowingly trespassed. Keep in mind, this isn't a criminal trial. The prosecution in this video isn't trying to prove trespass, because it was already shown. So they didn't have the same incentive to go hike around and show an area or two (ironically using OnX, proving it worked there) as the defense.

Also, his warning in 2015 for the EXACT same property would be notice of the land being private and also falls under the trespass law.

For you all that love content, take note that if the youtube video was never posted (after being told he was trespassing), this entire thing wouldn't have happened. The video was the damning piece - which showed OnX as a sponsor at the start.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

brisket said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the law (discussed in a different thread) if the land isn't posted or cultivated, you can legally hunt on it. You have to leave immediately if asked, however.
> 
> It didn't seem like the prosecution proved that the land was properly posted. They showed one picture of a no trespassing sign, but they admitted it was in the middle of the property, so he could have missed that sign. The land isn't posted at the corners or borders as shown by the videos the defendant provided, so how is it possible he was convicted?


On the flip side I got a kick out of the blurry and short android/IPhone videos of his buddy in the corners and borders as he claimed "as you can see there are absolutely no postings anywhere"

Not sure how that would hold up in an actual trial. SMH.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It was mentioned, but I think it merits emphasis, this was not his criminal trial. He was charged criminally for this offense in summit County in the 3rd District Court and convictions were entered. He admitted his guilt in that case and it is not disputed whether he knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly committed this violation. 

This hearing was simply a ploy for him to keep his hunting license. The Division suspended his license based upon the undisputed fact that he broke this specific law, and this was only an administrative appeal of that decision. I know it was a de novo appeal from the Division’s decision to suspend his license, but as far as factually in the criminal court where his actual prosecution took place, the trespassing was not at issue. 

The only thing at issue here was whether the violation merited suspension of his hunting privileges. Not whether he ultimately committed this offense or not. That was answered clearly in his criminal proceeding. He committed the crime. 

I had really hoped to dig in and just watch this, but goodness...it’s 6 hours! 20 minutes here or there as I have some time just isn’t cutting it.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> It was mentioned, but I think it merits emphasis, this was not his criminal trial. He was charged criminally for this offense in summit County in the 3rd District Court and convictions were entered. He admitted his guilt in that case and it is not disputed whether he knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly committed this violation.
> 
> This hearing was simply a ploy for him to keep his hunting license. The Division suspended his license based upon the undisputed fact that he broke this specific law, and this was only an administrative appeal of that decision. I know it was a de novo appeal from the Division's decision to suspend his license, but as far as factually I'm the criminal court where his actual prosecution took place, the trespassing was not at issue.
> 
> ...


Thank you for wording this better than I did.

They (defense) essentially tried to show that there was no malicious intent in his trespass and really defend that he was hunting there, that there was a vendetta against Erik, and that every single witness for the prosecution had flaws. They tried to show that his sentence was overkill (except he could actually receive 3 years for each count, which he had 2). This is where Officer Messerly (sic probably) I think did an exceptional job while being cross examined (although he sounds like a stubborn old mule).

I agree with what was said about Erik's attorney with both his stare down, and his "badgering" or whatever you lawyer folk actually call it. He made sure to push "intent to harm" and "this was personal" through the entire thing, which each witness was quick to strike down.

Erik's testimony at the end is where I am currently. It has started out with him saying a lot of the tapes are acting, there is a lot of B role, and in a lot of cases they aren't actually using the products sponsored. This is all true(I personally know many staged scenes in very famous videos), but hearing it from the bird's mouth should tell all these kids who glorify social media something... That our industry, like many others, is formally infested with a bunch of bull****.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> I had really hoped to dig in and just watch this, but goodness...it's 6 hours! 20 minutes here or there as I have some time just isn't cutting it.


If want to watch it his appeal started around half way through. The WB meeting started at 9am I believe and his appeal hearing started at 1 pm

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Yep. And just from where his starts until the end of the video is 6 hours. The entire meeting is 10+ hours long.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

RandomElk16 said:


> Erik's testimony at the end is where I am currently. It has started out with him saying a lot of the tapes are acting, there is a lot of B role, and in a lot of cases they aren't actually using the products sponsored. This is all true(I personally know many staged scenes in very famous videos), but hearing it from the bird's mouth should tell all these kids who glorify social media something... That our industry, like many others, is formally infested with a bunch of bull****.


I don't think my hunting programs will ever be the same. I haven't been able to watch one since without at some point thinking to myself - What a bunch of Muley Freaking B-Role!!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Yep. And just from where his starts until the end of the video is 6 hours. The entire meeting is 10+ hours long.


Glad that I didn't watch the whole thing

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------

