# Poaching and Such (kind of a book review)



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I just finished reading, "Indian Creek Chronicles" by Pete Fromm.
It's a book about Pete's stay near the Selway River in Idaho for 7 months during the winter when he was 20 years old. His job for the fish and game was to babysit salmon eggs hatching in the river. He was to keep the channel clear of ice so that the eggs and fry could survive the winter. 

He spent the winter in a canvas tent. It's an interesting read but I came away with an odd feeling. While staying there mostly alone (he did have the fish and game guys check on him periodically, local cougar hunters came through and invited him on a hunt, and friends snowmobiled in once) but he talks of shooting grouse, squirrels, and a moose for food. This was all done without the proper hunting permits. With the moose meat he even explains how he hid the meat and how nervous he was that someone would find out. Much of the writing talks of surviving on what he illegally hunted, along with some good descriptive writing on what he saw and felt through the experience.

I'm just puzzled at the poaching and how it came across as needed to supplement his meals and even take over as the main diet. Yet, it was very much poached. The book has actually won some wards for its prose. I might be reading more into it than I should but it almost glamorizes the poaching experience.

So, I would imagine a little leeway would be in order if a person was in a real survival situation, but it seems odd that he can write about poaching when in reality he had the opportunity to prepare and haul in the food items he needed. And if hunting was available as a resource, why didn't he obtain the proper permits?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If I was in a real survival situation in the wild, and there was protected game available for me to catch/kill and consume, whether I had a license or not or whether that specific water was open to fishing at that time would not even cross my mind. I'd get my food, and eat. I don't know how I'd ever get myself into that situation, especially with something like a moose. I have to believe that if I have the ability to kill a moose, I have the ability to get out. But, who knows? 

This does not appear to be a survival situation, so I can see how it could rub you the wrong way.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Definitely not a survival situation. He was able to take in supplies at the get-go. He received mail periodically when the Rangers or Fish & Game snowmobiled in. He had access to a phone about 8 to 10 miles away and could have asked for some supplies but he took in more than he needed.

Anyway, I thought it interesting that he poached and wrote about it. 

Agree that in a real survival situation almost everything goes.

Starting to read his book, "The Names of the Stars." He actually goes back in to the Selway and relives the experience something like 20+ years later.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It is too bad that the Montana Game and Fish couldn't go back and cite him for poaching or taking game out of season. Or did then and he just didn't say anything about that in his book? But they should of done something none the less specifically about the moose. 

I have often wondered on any and all of the survival shows that are popular now how the game and fish feel about when they see game violations. I know that most I have ever seen on any of the shows is someone fishing. Either with a spear, their hands, or even a pole and line.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The Selway is a special place so it would be tempting to read but i agree writing about poaching while completely capable of hunting legally and/or finding other supplies seems difficult to bypass. I've rafted the wilderness stretch once and spent a week above the Clearwater fly fishing and floating with my parents so I can understand the draw to write about it. Just odd that such an ironic tale of a wildlife employee poaching got published and then won awards.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

I think public attitudes towards poaching has changed over the years. It seems a lot less tolerated now than it used to be.

You gotta remember, social programs like welfare and food stamps that grew out of Pres. Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty weren't around prior to the mid 1960's. People without adequate means were left to their own devise and the handouts from others to feed their families. Often that meant bending the law to take wild game.

My own grandfather worked for the Forest Service and later a lumber company in Star Valley, Wyoming through the great depression and war years. Resources were tight during that time period but deer and elk were plentiful. Since my granddad spent his days in the surrounding hills in his old International pick-up truck with his trusty .30-30 in the back window gun rack, it's said there wasn't a poor, elderly, single parent, or widowed family in the valley that went without fresh venison during the winter months. 

Even when I was a kid, young healthy boys with an aptitude for hunting were expected to help fill the deer tags of not only their their extended families, but the poor people in the ward as well. There were times I'd set out opening morning of the deer hunt with 5 tags in my pocket to fill. My own father was a stickler for obeying fish and game laws, but this was somehow tolerated.

To a certain extent I think fish and game wardens were apt to look the other way if they knew the meat was going to good use. After all, they lived in the community too. Taking trophy animals out of season would get you busted for sure, but taking or tagging a deer or elk for meat for others less fortunate might be overlooked. I think this attitude was common throughout the intermountain west. It wasn't until the late 1960's when the 'meat to feed the family' excuse became obsolete, though the mindset persisted for a few more years.

So when you read accounts like Pete Fromm's taking game out of season, you kinda have to go back to the mindset of residents that permeated the region at that time, that game animals were put there for our consumption. Thus, it's not shocking to me hear Fromm took liberties with the wild game surrounding him.


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

Is there actually any proof that he really poached a moose. Would you want to read that he opened a can of Nalley's stew for supper? Got to make the reading interesting.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Great perspective Kevin D!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> I have often wondered on any and all of the survival shows that are popular now how the game and fish feel about when they see game violations.


I think it was Bear Grylls that wanted to do a show in Utah. The State required him to complete the Hutner's Safety course before they would allow him a permit to take whatever game he planned on taking while here. He refused, based on his background. The State also refused to work with him -- they insisted he complete the same requirements as anyone else that wanted to take protected game in Utah. I don't recall exactly how everything worked out, but good for Utah for not bending on rules just because someone thinks they are cool.

I think most of those shows have worked with the local authorities to make sure that things have been covered prior to the shows being held.



Critter said:


> I know that most I have ever seen on any of the shows is someone fishing. Either with a spear, their hands, or even a pole and line.


I'll have to check and see how this one worked -- because I know Matt Graham took trout using his hands from Deer Creek on his episode down by Boulder.

That Matt Graham is a weird dude. We had him in our archery camp a couple years ago. That guy hunted in bare feet. With all the danged cattle in that area, I can't imagine hunting in bare feet! Luckily, I wasn't the one that saw him out hunting in only his loin clothe...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I was just thumbing through my copy of the book...I haven't read it in a number of years, so I don't remember all the details. But, from what I remember, he was 40 or so miles from the nearest road and snowed in--the only access to the outside was via snowmoblie (did he have one?). Combine that with the fact that the detailed account took place in the 70s and I think the poaching becomes a little more acceptable.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The problem that I see it is that he had planned on going to this remote location to stay for x amount of months. So why did he not take enough supplies to survive for that many months. I haven't read the book but from the post here it says that he was visited by friends on snowmobiles and some lion hunters. That right there says that he could of had more supplies brought in if he really needed them. 

Also if he was sitting on a steam baby sitting salmon eggs perhaps he could of caught fish to eat instead of shooting a moose. 

I also think that there is a lot of this story that isn't being told and all the information we are getting is from someone that read his book. So did a lot of this actually happen or was he trying to keep the readers attention by adding extra events that he thought that might of happened if he would of been in a actual survival situation?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Critter said:


> The problem that I see it is that he had planned on going to this remote location to stay for x amount of months. So why did he not take enough supplies to survive for that many months. I haven't read the book but from the post here it says that he was visited by friends on snowmobiles and some lion hunters. That right there says that he could of had more supplies brought in if he really needed them.


Except that he had no way to communicate that need to them prior to them coming....from what I remember, his phone did not work. Also, fishing wasn't much of an option--remember that his job was to keep a small section of the river ice free.

He probably should have had enough supplies to last the winter...but, most 19 year old kids aren't smart enough to plan that far ahead adequately. And, FWIW, the book is categorized as nonfiction...the events are supposedly true.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If his phone didn't work back in the 70's I can understand that. There were no cell or satellite phones and the mobile phones of the era were about the size of a cinder block and weighted twice as much. Then you had to be in a area that had antena's that could pick up your call which wasn't likely in a remote area. 

But you would of thought that when someone came by he would mention that he was just about out of food and see if they would contact his employer to get more food into him, or even bring him some themselves.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I wouldn’t stress too much about this fellas. It happened in 1990.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I wouldn't stress too much about this fellas. It happened in 1990.


the 90's. Hell, that was ages ago. heck, that was before tenkara fishing was invented.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Combine that with the fact that the detailed account took place in the 70s and I think the poaching becomes a little more acceptable.


90s? This happened when the author was 19 going on 20...he was born in the late 50s. That means it must have happened in the late 70s! Way before Tenkara! Heck, back then, they probably only had bamboo rods and cat gut leaders.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Yeah, I don’t know where I got 1990. I just wanted to spread #fakenews I guess.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

I agree with Kevin. Growing up in a small community in Idaho, much of that mindset still existed in the 90's. People seemed to look the other way when people harvested game for meat due to poverty/need. That coupled with a severe distrust of all state and federal government officials/regulations resulted in a much different culture around the hunting and shooting animals out of season.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I would not consider this as poaching.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

It definitely was a different mind set back then. The fishcops not only lived in the community, they went to church with you and one of you was the Elder's Quorum President to the other one. (And/or they were your drinking buddies and you weren't always sure who paid the bill.) A citation for "poaching" wasn't an option. Also, party hunting had a different meaning to most hunters. It simply meant the party wouldn't shoot more deer than they had tags for. And we never did! But then again, except for the Zeniks' prize, the size of the antlers didn't mean very much. It wasn't until trophy hunting took hold of the sport and hunters started competing with each other instead of with the animals that poaching became the issue that it now is. I don't know when the book was written, but when we read it now, it has a different flavor than when the events happened. Whether that's good or bad depends to a large extent on whether or not you think the animal could have been one you wanted.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

All I can think about after reading through this thread is:
Matt Lauer
Harvey Weinstien
Roy Moore


Yep. It definitely was a different mind set back then.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> It definitely was a different mind set back then. The fishcops not only lived in the community, they went to church with you and one of you was the Elder's Quorum President to the other one. (And/or they were your drinking buddies and you weren't always sure who paid the bill.) A citation for "poaching" wasn't an option. Also, party hunting had a different meaning to most hunters. It simply meant the party wouldn't shoot more deer than they had tags for. And we never did! But then again, except for the Zeniks' prize, the size of the antlers didn't mean very much. It wasn't until trophy hunting took hold of the sport and hunters started competing with each other instead of with the animals that poaching became the issue that it now is. I don't know when the book was written, but when we read it now, it has a different flavor than when the events happened. Whether that's good or bad depends to a large extent on whether or not you think the animal could have been one you wanted.


So illegal party hunting is cool, but legal trophy hunting isn't? Am I reading that correctly?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> So illegal party hunting is cool, but legal trophy hunting isn't? Am I reading that correctly?


Nope! You're not reading that correctly. Back then, nobody complained much about illegal party hunting because hunters weren't in competition with each other and they didn't care if you shot a trophy or not. They only cared if you shot more deer than you had tags for. Some camps even shared their animals with the next camp if the next camp came up short an animal or two. Whether you think that's cool or not, it was quite normal and tolerated in those days. But with the promotion of trophy hunting, hunters begin to compete with each other for the few trophies around and they cared about the size of the antlers of the animals you shot, because that was an animal that they could have shot and put on their wall. So they begin spying on one another and turning one another in and soon illegal party hunting and sharing animals was no longer acceptable or tolerated (or cool.)

As for legal trophy hunting being cool, I guess it depends on whether or not you are willing to hunt trophies every 5 or 10 or 15 years or whether you have to give up your opportunity to hunt non-trophies more often so that trophy hunters can hunt their trophies every 5 or 10 or 15 years.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> As for legal trophy hunting being cool, I guess it depends on whether or not you are willing to hunt trophies every 5 or 10 or 15 years or whether you have to give up your opportunity to hunt non-trophies more often so that trophy hunters can hunt their trophies every 5 or 10 or 15 years.


 *hyperbole at it's finest!*
EFA, you sure can brighten a guys day on a cold inversion filled morning.;-)


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Societal norms evolve over time. The longer you live the more those changes become apparent. Behaviors that were acceptable or tolerated decades ago are increasingly taboo today and visa versa. PBH mentioned those sex offenders. Think back to the movies of the 40's or 50's when the leading lady was being difficult so the leading man grabs her, dips her down, and forcibly kisses her. She fights him at first but eventually she gives in and they find true love and live happily ever after. Perhaps that was acceptable behavior back then but viewed in today's climate of sexual harassment those scenes clearly cross the line. Anybody tries that today better have a good attorney.

One difference between the list PBH mentioned and the party hunting scenario is bad behavior from selfishness versus benefitting the greater community. By today's standards my grandfather from Star Valley Wyoming was a serial poacher. I wouldn't even hazard a guess on how many improperly tagged animals he brought home over his lifetime. But rather than being looked at as a criminal he was generally viewed as a hero in the community for looking after the welfare of his neighbors. I have to assume the local game warden was aware of my grandfather's activities but chose not to act. My grandfather wasted nothing, and wouldn't shoot an animal he deemed unfit to eat. That included cougar and bear.

I mention my grandfather not to judge whether he was right or wrong, but to point out how societal norms have evolved over the last 70 to 80 years. Events in the past are best understood in the historical mindset of the people present.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> Nope! You're not reading that correctly. Back then, nobody complained much about illegal party hunting because hunters weren't in competition with each other and they didn't care if you shot a trophy or not. They only cared if you shot more deer than you had tags for. Some camps even shared their animals with the next camp if the next camp came up short an animal or two. Whether you think that's cool or not, it was quite normal and tolerated in those days. But with the promotion of trophy hunting, hunters begin to compete with each other for the few trophies around and they cared about the size of the antlers of the animals you shot, because that was an animal that they could have shot and put on their wall. So they begin spying on one another and turning one another in and soon illegal party hunting and sharing animals was no longer acceptable or tolerated (or cool.)


This still appears you are promoting this behavior. And the only reason it is no longer acceptable to break the law is because of the big, bad trophy hunters.

You're okay with 100% illegal conduct, but not okay with a mentality that is 100% legal that you simply don't agree with it. To each their own, I guess. I simply don't get it.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

What has changed is people are after the "experience" rather than the need. Those who hunt for the need don't have a problem with party hunting, even to this day...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I can't see a way what he describes is anything but poaching. Bringing in context doesn't change the definition but explains why he justified his actions and the lack of consequences. Poaching has been an issue for ages, well before the 70s even if prosecution was relatively rare.

What is disappointing with his case is the utter lack of preparedness. It was a contrived/planned situation that could have been easily prepared for. His boss is equally to blame. I mean why not verify he had a license and a issue a special tag for an emergency? I mean it was a job with the fish cops after all.

The Magruder Corridor is pretty wild terrain even now but clearly people were able travel it during winter during his tenure there. Steep terrain but with a little thought they could have stocked his big wall tent properly and had emergency supplies staged at Paradise Guard Station for him to get when conditions allowed. So many options would have been better and easy to prep which leaves room to criticize the poor choices they made.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> This still appears you are promoting this behavior. And the only reason it is no longer acceptable to break the law is because of the big, bad trophy hunters.
> 
> You're okay with 100% illegal conduct, but not okay with a mentality that is 100% legal that you simply don't agree with it. To each their own, I guess. I simply don't get it.


Maybe this will help!

I just checked through my old proclamations 1955, 1960, 1967, & 1973 and party hunting restrictions aren't even mentioned in those proclamations. It isn't until my 1993 issue that it's mentioned as an illegal act. It may have been an illegal act earlier, but not according to the proclamations I happen to have on hand.

Per the 1973 proclamation:
"*G. GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR TAKING DEER
1. EXHIBIT OF LICENSE, PERMIT AND WILDLIFE*
All persons while engaged in hunting or while transporting wildlife, shall be required upon demand of any Conservation Officer or any other peace officer to exhibit the required license, permit, or tag, or any device or apparatus in his possession used for hunting, or any wildlife in his possession. 
*2. TAGGING* 
All animals must be tagged immediately after kill and before being transported. It shall be unlawful to transport any animal from the place of kill unless the tag is detached from the license or permit, properly notched to correspond with the date of kill and the physical characteristics of the animal, and securely attached to the animal. It shall be unlawful to notch more than one date, sex of animal, or to mutilate the tag. It shall be unlawful to hunt or pursue game with a tag detached from the license or permit. The tag must remain with the majority portion of meat until the animal is entirely consumed. It is unlawful for any butcher or owner or employee of a locker plant or storage plant to receive for processing or storage the carcass of any big game animal required to be tagged, unless the carcass has attached to it the required tag or proper donation slip.
*3. AGE LIMIT
4. HUNTING HOURS
5. USE OF DOGS
6. WEARING OF RED OR YELLOW APPAREL
7. FIREARM RESTRICTIONS
8. BOW AND ARROW RESTRICTIONS
9. CARRYING OF LOADED FIREARMS IN, AND DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS FROM A VEHICLE
10. USE OF AIRBORNE, TERRESTRIAL, AND AQUATIC VEHICLES IN TAKING AND TRANSPORTING WILDLIFE, HUNTERS AND HUNTING EQUIPMENT
11. SPOTLIGHTING GAME
12. EMERGENCY CLOSING
13. CHECKING STATIONS AND ROAD BLOCKS
14. EVIDENCE OF SEX
15. DONATION OF MEAT*
(Requires signed certificate)
*16. TRANSPORTING OF BIG GAME WITHIN THE STATE
17. EXPORTING BIG GAME FROM THE STATE
18. IMPORTATION OF GAME MEAT INTO UTAH
19. PURCHASE OR SELL WILDLIFE
20. WASTING WILDLIFE
21. HUNTING UNDER INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR ILLEGAL DRUGS
22. TRESPASS
23. UNLAWFUL TO AID OR ASSIST*"

Our conversation assumes on both our parts that party hunting was an illegal act back then. Apparently, it wasn't! Like I and many others have said, the mindset regarding big game hunting was a lot different then. What changed all that? If it wasn't trophy hunting, then what was it? I'm willing to entertain your notion.

Would I approve of it now? Nope! Would I promote it now? Nope! Or do it myself? Nope! Have I done it myself? Nope!
Does it still happen? Probably.
And, just think, next year it will be legal again per the mentor program which SFW and 4 other trophy oriented conservation organizations do approve of and promote. Aren't we lucky?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I assure you that for as long as hunting has been regulated by permits, it has never been legal to shoot an animal without a permit, whether the common term of "party hunting" was stated in the proclamation or not. Party hunting is shooting an animal which you do not possess a permit. No other way to slice it. 

I'm not a trophy hunter myself, so I really don't feel a need to defend the practice. I simply found amusement in the ax that you have to grind put you in a position where you were defending an illegal act over a legal one. I'm glad you (kind of) cleared that one up for us, though.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla, I wonder if you are missing the main point in EFA's argument--that the acceptance of party hunting has gone away due to trophy hunting. Whether it was illegal or not is beside the point. 20, 30, 40 years ago, party hunting was not only accepted by most hunters, it was also acceptable in the eyes of most game wardens. I know it because my own father who had to work as a "game warden" on deer hunts in back in the day talked about party hunting all the time. Why has this old tradition become so frowned upon now compared to then? That, to me, is the essence of this thread. EFA is making the argument that it is due to trophy hunting...do you have a different opinion?

I have heard many people over the years decry the law making party hunting illegal and heard them wonder why it even matters as long as a tag is present to cover the kill. I understand the reasoning behind the law and like it...explaining this to others, especially those who grew up in a different world with a different mindset, is difficult!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Vanilla, I wonder if you are missing the main point in EFA's argument--that the acceptance of party hunting has gone away due to trophy hunting. Whether it was illegal or not is beside the point. 20, 30, 40 years ago, party hunting was not only accepted by most hunters, it was also acceptable in the eyes of most game wardens. I know it because my own father who had to work as a "game warden" on deer hunts in back in the day talked about party hunting all the time. Why has this old tradition become so frowned upon now compared to then? That, to me, is the essence of this thread. EFA is making the argument that it is due to trophy hunting...do you have a different opinion?
> 
> I have heard many people over the years decry the law making party hunting illegal and heard them wonder why it even matters as long as a tag is present to cover the kill. I understand the reasoning behind the law and like it...explaining this to others, especially those who grew up in a different world with a different mindset, is difficult!


I know why the party hunting law changed when it did and it had very little to do with "trphy hunting".


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

And? Why has the emphasis changed? I have my opinion too....but, it is just that.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

ridgetop said:


> I know why the party hunting law changed when it did and it had very little to do with "trphy hunting".


Pray tell...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

w2u,

I'm not missing that part of EFA's argument. That is exactly what I'm focused on. The decrying of "trophy hunting" as the root of ferreting out an illegal practice commonly used throughout prior generations seems silly to me. But if that is the reason, then kudos for trophy hunting! Maybe I should get on board with that crowd after all? What other illegal acts can we stop with the use of trophy hunting? To use your brother's example, maybe we can blame trophy hunting for stamping out sexual harassment too? Get Don Peay on the phone, we'll give him an award if that's the case. 

And for the record, the "party hunting law" never changed, it simply started to be enforced more universally than it used to be. As I stated above, from the day the state started regulating hunting with permits, killing a protected species without a valid permit has NEVER been legal. And if you possess 1 permit for one buck deer, and you kill two, that is, and always has been, illegal.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> maybe we can blame trophy hunting for stamping out sexual harassment too?


isn't that exactly what is happening? Instead of flock shooting at anything that walks and talks, we'll all have to start thinking a bit more about our target. We'll have to do our homework, and try to understand that trophy before ever approaching and blasting with some crude lead shot pickup line, and rather coerce the precious creature using a more refined steel tactic.

No more sexual harrassment here. Time to sight in that scope and narrow that object to a trophy worthy of the risk.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> w2u,
> 
> I'm not missing that part of EFA's argument. That is exactly what I'm focused on. The decrying of "trophy hunting" as the root of ferreting out an illegal practice commonly used throughout prior generations seems silly to me. But if that is the reason, then kudos for trophy hunting! Maybe I should get on board with that crowd after all? What other illegal acts can we stop with the use of trophy hunting? To use your brother's example, maybe we can blame trophy hunting for stamping out sexual harassment too? Get Don Peay on the phone, we'll give him an award if that's the case.
> 
> And for the record, the "party hunting law" never changed, it simply started to be enforced more universally than it used to be. As I stated above, from the day the state started regulating hunting with permits, killing a protected species without a valid permit has NEVER been legal. And if you possess 1 permit for one buck deer, and you kill two, that is, and always has been, illegal.


That's just it....party hunting isn't gone (maybe decreased but certainly not gone). The acceptance is what has changed. Why? That is the question. You are not offering any insight on that question. Again, I am not questioning the legality of it or the past legality of it. I want to know why the general hunting public is less willing to accept the practice. To me, you seem to say that the ends justify the means.

Personally, I believe party hunting is less acceptable today because we don't have unlimited opportunity or unlimited deer tags. We can't just go buy our deer tag or elk tag over the counter. So, we certainly don't like it when a guy shoots an animal with someone else's tag...especially when that someone else wouldn't shoot it or even hunt it otherwise. IF deer tags were OTC and there were no cap on them, I don't believe the acceptance of party hunting would be any different today than 40-50 years ago. It is that idea that one guy is taking more than his fair share that we don't like.

I wish I could say that the ethics of party hunting and the acceptance of it had changed because the hunting population were more conservation-minded and more focused on the desire to share a limited resource. Instead, I think the hunting public has become more and more selfish. So, great....illegal party hunting has declined. But, I wonder if it is only masking what is a bigger problem and one potentially damning to all of us and our hunting tradition. That is what I think EFA is getting at.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

If there were 30,000 deer tags statewide and 90,000 guns were used to fill all 30,000 tags, in a few short years you would begin to see only 25,000 tags, then 20,000 and on and on if all those tags were filled every year as well.

Not only against the rules, the overall chance to hunt would decrease as well.

From a numbers management standpoint, party hunting is the way to go. To protect over harvest, it has to be illegal. Otherwise every Tom, Dick, and Harry would be shooting deer with waste because too many are killed to fill the needed quota - it would get out of hand.

Ethics has nothing to do with it, other than it makes you feel good you're obeying the law...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

No W2U, that is not what EFA is getting at. He hates the trophy hunting mentality that he blames for every ill hunting faces, that's what he's getting at. He just found another platform to state that. Honestly, I'm not mad at EFA. I agree with many of his points on the detrimental impact trophy hunting can have on our hobby, but that is the real crux of what he's saying. 

Why do I have to determine and list for you the reasons our attitudes towards party hunting have changed? I have never claimed to know the reason, or even care. I simply like that an illegal act, that has been against the law from day 1, is being enforced. I couldn't care less if it's because of trophy hunting, or if we are all the sudden superior conservationists to our predecessors, or if we are selfish and want what is ours and we don't want to share. I like that the law is being enforced more, and therefore, followed more. Why do I care what the motivation is for this over any other law on the books? We have laws to establish order. Without them, there is anarchy. I really don't care what one's motivation to not kill me is, I just prefer they don't kill me. I'll settle for any reason you can come up with for that.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I think this is the basic timeline. Pete went into the wilderness in 1980. He didn't publish "Indian Creek Chronicles" until 1993, thirteen years after the experience. I believe he kept journals and used those notes for the book, but after 13 years was there embellishments? 

If I remember right he had access to some type of crank phone but he had to walk 8 to 10 miles to get to it. The whole situation was planned (it was a job). He and those who placed him there had ample time and opportunity to provide sustenance. 

I guess my concern with the story is that someone today who is looking for an experience like this may decide that they can go off grid for a few weeks and take whatever game they want because it seems to be okay while camping or spending time outdoors. Does that make sense?

Reader's perceptions might come into play, but I get the feeling he was, at age 20, a "greenhorn" from Wisconsin who was going to college in Montana and took the job because he dreamed of being a mountain man. I got the feeling he wanted to see how much he could live off the land. He shot grouse, shot the moose, caught a 14 inch cutthroat, and even ate cougar meat from one of the cougars the hunters shot. The way the book describes his fear of someone catching him with the moose meat leads me to believe he shot it without a permit and possibly out of season.

So, I'm starting his new book, "The Names of the Stars." He goes back in as a 45 year old man (2005?) for the same experience. I'll let you know how this one goes if you're interested.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

W2U, are you really elkfromabove's brother?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> No W2U, that is not what EFA is getting at. He hates the trophy hunting mentality that he blames for every ill hunting faces, that's what he's getting at. He just found another platform to state that. Honestly, I'm not mad at EFA. I agree with many of his points on the detrimental impact trophy hunting can have on our hobby, but that is the real crux of what he's saying.
> 
> Why do I have to determine and list for you the reasons our attitudes towards party hunting have changed? I have never claimed to know the reason, or even care. I simply like that an illegal act, that has been against the law from day 1, is being enforced. I couldn't care less if it's because of trophy hunting, or if we are all the sudden superior conservationists to our predecessors, or if we are selfish and want what is ours and we don't want to share. I like that the law is being enforced more, and therefore, followed more. Why do I care what the motivation is for this over any other law on the books? We have laws to establish order. Without them, there is anarchy. I really don't care what one's motivation to not kill me is, I just prefer they don't kill me. I'll settle for any reason you can come up with for that.


OK, I'll grind my ax on a more pertinent thread or forum (or not). Ya win some and ya lose some, but hopefully ya win more than ya lose.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> OK, I'll grind my ax on a more pertinent thread or forum (or not). Ya win some and ya lose some, but hopefully ya win more than ya lose.


I'm sure there will be an opportunity to spread your anti trophy hunting views soon enough. I believe you can definitely be classified as a trophy hunter bigot!:mrgreen:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I couldn't care less if it's because of trophy hunting, or if we are all the sudden superior conservationists to our predecessors, or if we are selfish and want what is ours and we don't want to share. I like that the law is being enforced more, and therefore, followed more. Why do I care what the motivation is for this over any other law on the books? We have laws to establish order. Without them, there is anarchy. I really don't care what one's motivation to not kill me is, I just prefer they don't kill me. I'll settle for any reason you can come up with for that.


Yeah...because it doesn't really matter what the future of our sport holds or whether the opportunity to hunt is slowly disappearing for the majority of us. Why would that matter? Why should we ever look closer at any law and ask whether it is a good thing, a bad thing, or if it needs be revised, or if it is the root of a bigger problem? Who cares about societal problems that lead to murder...as long as "you" are not killed, right? To hell with right and wrong as long as "you" are all right. Who cares if Jews are being mass murdered as long as us Christians aren't, right? Pretty scary thought...Thanks for making my point for me...

...if we are not concerned with the motivation, I believe we could be jeopardizing the future for, if for nobody else, our kids!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> W2U, are you really elkfromabove's brother?


No, he's not. My 2 brothers gave up hunting when they were young adults and some of their hunting "buddies" began teasing and ridiculing them about the small size of the antlers on the deer our family hunts produced. And when they graduated from college, got married, and moved to different states, they became anti-hunting advocates. (My dad began hunting with his next door neighbor's family and I turned to bowhunting, mostly by myself.)

So, it's now down to attacking the messengers?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Maybe not brothers, but I did grow up in Enoch!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Utah has ALOT of opportunity hunts. 

Utah has A LOT of trophy hunting aswell. 

Why the rants and bickering?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Utah has ALOT of opportunity hunts.
> 
> Utah has A LOT of trophy hunting aswell.
> 
> Why the rants and bickering?


W2U just said it best, "the opportunity to hunt is slowly disappearing for the majority of us."

To put it simple, it takes about 4 to 6 years for a deer or elk to become a trophy (if they ever do) and trophy hunters don't want them killed before then. Thus, the ongoing attempts to make that happen via the Wildlife Board through restrictive regulations which reduce or limit opportunity.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Yeah...because it doesn't really matter what the future of our sport holds or whether the opportunity to hunt is slowly disappearing for the majority of us. Why would that matter? Why should we ever look closer at any law and ask whether it is a good thing, a bad thing, or if it needs be revised, or if it is the root of a bigger problem? Who cares about societal problems that lead to murder...as long as "you" are not killed, right? To hell with right and wrong as long as "you" are all right. Who cares if Jews are being mass murdered as long as us Christians aren't, right? Pretty scary thought...Thanks for making my point for me...
> 
> ...if we are not concerned with the motivation, I believe we could be jeopardizing the future for, if for nobody else, our kids!


I have seen some stuff in my day, but I'm not sure I've ever seen something this nonsensical from you. I don't ever recall advocating that I'm fine with other people being killed, and certainly not the Jews. The more apt analogy would be for you to say that I don't care what one's motivation to not kill the Jews is, so long as they don't kill the Jews. Which would actually be correct. I'll take world peace any way I can get it. :grin:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that our party hunting law does not need to be revised to allow the practice. I think we agree on that, but you can argue just to argue...I'm game for that. This is turning into UTOF after all!

Wolves suck. Global warming is a hoax. Simms are better than Korkers. Tenkara is not fly fishing. Dry fly or die. Go Utes! (Miss anything?)


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> Ya win some and ya lose some, but hopefully ya win more than ya lose.


Amen brother!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> W2U just said it best, "the opportunity to hunt is slowly disappearing for the majority of us."
> 
> To put it simple, it takes about 4 to 6 years for a deer or elk to become a trophy (if they ever do) and trophy hunters don't want them killed before then. Thus, the ongoing attempts to make that happen via the Wildlife Board through restrictive regulations which reduce or limit opportunity.


Actually Goofy said it best, "there is plenty of opportunity for the trophy hunter and non-trophy hunter alike".


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think some of you really hit the nail on the head about the OP.
In most ways, overtime our perspectives and views change.
Society and culture is always changing. 
Just look at my "signature" at the bottom of my posts that I've had for a couple years now. It says it best.
Problem is, a few people out there really have a hard time with change.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I have seen some stuff in my day, but I'm not sure I've ever seen something this nonsensical from you. I don't ever recall advocating that I'm fine with other people being killed, and certainly not the Jews.


Nonsensical? They were your words....to repeat, " I really don't care what one's motivation to not kill me is, I just prefer they don't kill me." You "don't care" what one's motivation to not kill" is as long as it is not you. So, if someone's motivation is to kill because of race, religion, hunting preference, whatever, that's ok....as long as you aren't being killed. Those are your words, not mine. I agree pretty "nonsensical" and stupid. But, you said it. Not me.

No, I don't think party hunting laws should be changed. But, I am concerned with the "motivation" behind why the practice is not so accepted anymore. This selfish attitude of hunters and the idea that we need to restrict and continue to restrict is concerning....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Wolves suck.


Yup....and it is ok to poach them, but party hunting is a horrible crime especially when a dad allows his son to kill a deer on his tag, right?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, if someone's motivation is to kill because of race, religion, hunting preference, whatever, that's ok....as long as you aren't being killed. Those are your words, not mine. I agree pretty "nonsensical" and stupid. But, you said it. Not me.


Actually, no I didn't. And it really doesn't matter how many times you type it out, it won't make it true. I never have said a single time I'm okay with people killing as long as it isn't me. I've never said anything even remotely close to that. And my words can't even be twisted to suggest I said it in any truthful discussion. But type it out one more time, maybe you'll actually start believing it yourself if you do. But I even doubt that.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

BOYS BOYS BOYS!!! Getting abit nasty? Take it to the P.M.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> . I really don't care what one's motivation to not kill me is, I just prefer they don't kill me.


I guess your account was hacked....page 4, #39!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Nope, it wasn’t. I did say that. But I did NOT say that I’m okay if they kill others. That’s just crazy talk, and nonsensical. 

Sorry Dunkem. Not trying to be nasty.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Actually Goofy said it best, "there is plenty of opportunity for the trophy hunter and non-trophy hunter alike".


I wholeheartedly agree! Now if we could just get the trophy hunters to agree and stop their ongoing efforts to reduce the Limited Entry and OIAL point creep at the expense of non-trophy hunters' opportunities. Good luck with that! They are the ones that have been pushing the envelope in their direction, not the non-hunters. Or haven't you noticed? Non-trophy hunters are not trying to turn trophy units and/or hunts into general units 'cause we don't need to in order to provide acceptable non-trophy hunting opportunities. However, because of the point creep, the trophy hunting crowd needs to reduce opportunity and/or increase the number of trophy hunts in order to have acceptable trophy hunting opportunities.

It's really hard to make this issue a simple matter because there so many facets and avenues available to manipulate the system that it's difficult to tie them all into one thread, let alone one post. Sorry. But, as I see it, in order to have more trophies, you have to leave more bucks on the hill for about 5 or 6 years. And in order to leave more bucks on the hill, you have to have more deer, and/or higher buck to doe ratios, and/or fewer tags, and/or lower success rates, and/or more trophy hunts. Having more deer can be an ideal solution, but that's difficult to achieve per the many aspects of survival and growth that we have little or no control over, and the expense, labor, and time it takes to deal with the aspects we do have some control over. But even if it is achieved, those additional deer/bucks need to be added to both trophy hunts and opportunity hunts in acceptable proportions and that gets us back to the politics. With the other solutions, we have to come to agreeable choices on numbers and policies and, thus we're again back to politics.

I'm signing off for now. I've got a brain freeze and I have other things to do, but I hope I've have or will make a difference in the direction I think the system is taking us.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Dunkem said:


> BOYS BOYS BOYS!!! Getting abit nasty? Take it to the P.M.


As the self appointed Prime Minister of UWN (it was a landslide victory at the election held last month at the annual Los Anchorage Midtown Fred Meyer Ptarmigan Bash), I will settle this spat right now:

You guys do know that upland and waterfowl seasons are still open, right? Some big game too. Save the fire until the ides of march as we lament the millions of deer either starving to death under miles of snow, freezing to death in the 45 deg Obama rains, or otherwise suffering from cyberbullying due to their deformed genitalia.

As you were.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

:mrgreen: Thank you Mr. Cake!! Now I am taking the Mrs and going to run amuck downtown, so you boys behave!!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Dunkem said:


> :mrgreen: Thank you Mr. Cake!! Now I am taking the Mrs and going to run amuck downtown, so you boys behave!!


Is that legal where you are at?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Dunkem said:


> :mrgreen: Thank you Mr. Cake!! Now I am taking the Mrs and going to run amuck downtown, so you boys behave!!





Critter said:


> Is that legal where you are at?


And do you both have the proper permits, or are you PARTY hunting with just one permit? :grin:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> You guys do know that upland and waterfowl seasons are still open, right? Some big game too. Save the fire until the ides of march as we lament the millions of deer either starving to death under miles of snow, freezing to death in the 45 deg Obama rains, or otherwise suffering from cyberbullying due to their deformed genitalia.
> 
> As you were.


This is actually probably a big contributor to my crankiness! You see, I retired my pooch from waterfowling a few years ago as he was getting up there in age. I kind of lost the fire when that happened and didn't go nearly as much as I used to. This week marked the one year anniversary since my best buddy passed on to the happy hunting grounds. I couldn't even bring myself to buy a duck stamp this year. No waterfowling makes me even older and crankier than I was before! Johnny is like a magician. He knows everything.

That's it, I'm going to go illegally shoot some ducks tomorrow just so W2U knows that wolves aren't the only federally protected wildlife I want to shoot in the face. Just as long as it's not me that gets caught, I guess...right w2u?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Critter said:


> Is that legal where you are at?


It is 2017 you know. Almost 2018, things about to get wild.

And Vanilla, that just sucks. No two ways about it.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Yup....and it is ok to poach them, but party hunting is a horrible crime especially when a dad allows his son to kill a deer on his tag, right?


If that was only the case for a general season tag but of course you know that's not the case.
Another nice spin by the spinmeister.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> If that was only the case for a general season tag but of course you know that's not the case.
> Another nice spin by the spinmeister.


Back to attacking the messenger so soon? That didn't last very long, did it!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

"Attacking the messenger" is that going to be the new catch phrase for 2018?
Come on Lee, even you thing these new changes to the mentor program are a bad idea.
Am I right about that?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> "Attacking the messenger" is that going to be the new catch phrase for 2018?
> Come on Lee, even you thing these new changes to the mentor program are a bad idea.
> Am I right about that?


Yes, It's a bad idea, but those who promote it are not bad people. That's a significant difference in my mind.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Yes, It's a bad idea, but those who promote it are not bad people. That's a significant difference in my mind.


As long as they are not a trophy hunter!;-)


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> As long as they are not a trophy hunter!;-)


You had me there for a few minutes. I thought you were serious until I realized the smiley face was a winkie. I have to hand it to you, that was a good joke!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> You had me there for a few minutes. I thought you were serious until I realized the smiley face was a winkie. I have to hand it to you, that was a good joke!


Glad I could make you smile. Most of this debating back and forth in mainly for entertainment anyway.


----------

