# Price area poaching continues



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/news/08-03/poaching.php

I hope they catch these guys. Things like this make me sick.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

It's a sin to shoot a deer and leave it lay to waste, I hope those guys get caught and pay for that. :twisted: 

I don't think its right to place all the blame on oil field workers, I'm sure they are not the only poachers working the area. A lot of the drilling companies no longer allow employs to have guns at the work sites or in company trucks; you can get fired for breaking those rules. Most of the oil company workers I know wouldn't risk their job just to shoot something. 
It could have been anybody that shot those deer, maybe some disillusioned rabbit hunters who couldn't find any rabbits to shoot; like those kids who shot those cows last year. :shock:


----------



## jhunter (Dec 14, 2007)

What a tragedy. I hope they catch em'. This BS needs to stop!


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

the sad thing it never going to to end. It sad and sick that they just let tehm go to wast. I hope they get cought and have the book thrown at them.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

These SOB poachers are stealing from the rest of us. 

I did notice the story talked about two does, a fawn, and one small buck that were killed. So much for the LE/trophy hunters being the cause of poaching. :? :roll: I am against poaching as much as anybody, that is why I get irked when it is 'reduced' to just 'trophy hunters' and/or LE units that 'make' good folk do bad things. Call it what it is: selfish people who feel entitled to act like idiots!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

This is awful. :evil: It is the mindset in the smaller towns. Growing up in Price, I use to hear of lots of people that didn't think anything of shooting a deer for fun. This was back when I was younger and didn't know how bad it really was. I don't hear it anymore because I am not around as much and I wouldn't hesitate turning them in. :evil: 

Pro, no one mentioned 'trophy hunter being the cause' in this thread. Why bring it up? Just a question. :? I agree with your first and last sentence. There are poachers from people who shoot them for the meat, to trophy hunters, it would be unfair to say it is just one group doing most of it. I take it personally when someone does something like this.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> Pro, no one mentioned 'trophy hunter being the cause' in this thread. *Why bring it up?* Just a question. :? I agree with your first and last sentence. There are poachers from people who shoot them for the meat, to trophy hunters, it would be unfair to say it is just one group doing most of it. I take it personally when someone does something like this.


Because in other poaching stories it has been brought up. I saw this as a great opportunity to show how that argument does NOT hold water. I too take it personal! :evil:

I also grew up in a small town where poaching was 'tolerated' by most folks. But, I also grew up when 'party hunting' was the 'norm'. Times have changed, and we as sportsmen MUST step up and stop this kind of activity. I hear hunters calling for more opportunity to hunt, this is where opportunity is taken away from each and every hunter.


----------



## Crash (Mar 20, 2008)

I wen tup to WA state last year and went rabiit hunting with my little brother up there. We were hunting with some of his friends on their farm. The local police officers allow the farmers to spot-light rabbits on their land. So that was the plan. We came across a doe and his friends were all getting ready to blast it. I told them that if they did, they would here from dad who is a Highway Patrolman. They tried and tried to talk me into it. In the end they let it go. I have turned people in before, and would turn my own family in. These were just high school kids. I think parents need to teach them the value of hunting.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Pro, no one mentioned 'trophy hunter being the cause' in this thread. *Why bring it up?* Just a question. :? I agree with your first and last sentence. There are poachers from people who shoot them for the meat, to trophy hunters, it would be unfair to say it is just one group doing most of it. I take it personally when someone does something like this.
> ...


I agree completely with you. I was not saying it was right, all I was saying is that there is still that sick mentality out there in these small towns. Times have changed, but unfortunately not as much as I would of liked to see.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Because in other poaching stories it has been brought up. I saw this as a great opportunity to show how that argument does NOT hold water. I too take it personal! :evil:
> 
> .


Doesn't hold water? So, how do you account for the FACT that trophy hunting rings are on the rise...and that the poaching of trophy animals is on the rise? How do you account for the fact that poaching cases, in general, are on the rise despite less law enforcement and with less opportunity?

Citing one example and saying it is a fact that Limited Entry hunting doesn't lead to poaching is ridiculous...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Because in other poaching stories it has been brought up. I saw this as a great opportunity to show how that argument does NOT hold water. I too take it personal! :evil:
> ...


Do you even read what you post? I said this shows that not ALL poaching is trophy/LE hunting related. I can come up with DOZENS more if you would like. You continue to imply the majority of poachers are trophy motivated, while I contend the majority are done because of opportunity and stupidity. PROVE that I am wrong.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

So, by that theory...Thiefs rob banks because we allow banks to have lots of money??? It is the systems fault that banks get robbed because it allows for oppurtunity...


Wow, I thought criminals poached animals because they were criminals. Criminals are criminals because they don't want to work for anything, they take the easy road by stealing from you and I. 

I guess then, that by eliminating LE hunts the poaching will stop...interesting... :roll: _(O)_


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> So, by that theory...Thiefs rob banks because we allow banks to have lots of money??? It is the systems fault that banks get robbed because it allows for oppurtunity...
> 
> *Wow, I thought criminals poached animals because they were criminals. Criminals are criminals because they don't want to work for anything, they take the easy road by stealing from you and I.*
> 
> I guess then, that by eliminating LE hunts the poaching will stop...interesting... :roll: _(O)_


Great post! I really agree with the bold statement.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Do you even read what you post? I said this shows that not ALL poaching is trophy/LE hunting related. I can come up with DOZENS more if you would like. You continue to imply the majority of poachers are trophy motivated, while I contend the majority are done because of opportunity and stupidity. PROVE that I am wrong.


Likewise, brother, likewise...do you even read what you post? I never said this shows that not ALL poaching is trophy/LE hunting related. I can come up with DOZENS of examples where trophy animals are poached if you would like. You continue to imply that poaching is not related to trophy hunting, while I contend that it is. PROVE that I am wrong.

By the way, I have never implied nor said that the majority of poaching cases are trophy motivated...I do, however, strongly believe that the increased value in trophy antlers and limited entry hunting are significantly increasing the problem of poaching. Again, PROVE that I am wrong.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyo2ut, is your last name Clinton? Seriously, you spin things as well as Hillary on her account of her trip to Bosnia. You have repeated implied that most poachers are motivated by the trophy mentality and the LE units that frustrate people and make them give in to temptation. My stance is poaching has been around since they made bad limits, and it will be around as long as people feel entitled to the game they think is theirs, trophy quality or not. The MINORITY of poachers are motivated by the trophy quality of the animal, and the MAJORITY of poachers are motivated by selfishness, greed, and stupidity. :idea:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> So, by that theory...Thiefs rob banks because we allow banks to have lots of money??? It is the systems fault that banks get robbed because it allows for oppurtunity...
> 
> Wow, I thought criminals poached animals because they were criminals. Criminals are criminals because they don't want to work for anything, they take the easy road by stealing from you and I.
> 
> I guess then, that by eliminating LE hunts the poaching will stop...interesting... :roll: _(O)_


crappy analogy...apples to apples and oranges to oranges. A better analogy is this: let's say that the value of fools gold suddenly shot up and rules suddenly developed to govern the mining of fools gold. Don't you think that cases where fools gold was illegally mined and stolen would suddenly spring up? Don't you also think the cases of illegal fools gold mining and the theft of fools gold would continue to climb as the value of fools gold climbed?

Criminals poach animals because of many reasons including: 1) They feel like they have no other opportunity because their opportunity was taken away...in other words, they feel like since they have been hunting this spot for 100 years, they can still do it cuz no government is gonna tell them what to do...(kind of like the stupid hypocritical talk about poaching wolves made on this very site) 2) The value of the item they steal--do you think these poaching rings that arise and sell antlers would be doing it if the antlers didn't have value? 3)stupidity/boredom--how many poaching cases are the result of drinking, drugs, and youthfull stupidity where kids saw an opportunity to just kill something? I could go on...but the reasons people poach are endless and definitely not universal.

And, YES, I do believe that the poaching cases would decline dramatically if we didn't have so much limited entry hunting. I see the same thing in limited harvest fishing...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You have repeated implied that most poachers are motivated by the trophy mentality and the LE units that frustrate people and make them give in to temptation. My stance is poaching has been around since they made bad limits, and it will be around as long as people feel entitled to the game they think is theirs, trophy quality or not. The MINORITY of poachers are motivated by the trophy quality of the animal, and the MAJORITY of poachers are motivated by selfishness, greed, and stupidity.


Prove it! You can go back and read any post I have written and you will NOT find one instance where I said that poachers are only motivated by trophy mentality...not once! My stance has always stayed the same...LE hunting, the selfishness and greed associated with trophy hunting, and the increased value of trophy animals leads to more poaching. Sad fact, but true.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Hmmm, yep crappy analogy is right (at least one I just read). I guess we will have to disagree. There in no way I believe that poaching would stop or be limited by eliminating LE hunts. In fact I find it ridiculas. Even more ridiculas is that we would take away wonderful trophy oppurtunities from good honest hard working sportsman, because a few criminals want to steal. It is a good thing this whole discussion is of opinion and I can still hunt LE hunts!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > *You have repeated implied that most poachers are motivated by the trophy mentality and the LE units* that frustrate people and make them give in to temptation. My stance is poaching has been around since they made bad limits, and it will be around as long as people feel entitled to the game they think is theirs, trophy quality or not. The MINORITY of poachers are motivated by the trophy quality of the animal, and the MAJORITY of poachers are motivated by selfishness, greed, and stupidity.
> ...


Read what I put in bold from my earlier post, and from your last post. :? Ignorance at it's best. Or is it simply putting words out there that didn't exist previously?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

judas people! It's called supply and demand. Haven't any of you ever taken a business course?!

When the value of an item increases, so does the demand for that item. When the market is saturated, the demand becomes less and decreased value soon follows.

Poaching has been around for as long as there have been rules limiting hunting and fishing. As long as there are rules governing the harvest of animals, there will be those who break those rules. We can't stop that. I don't believe anyone is thinking about stopping it.

But, there are variables that will influence the rate and frequency of poaching. If demand for a certain item increases (elk antlers, deer antlers, fish eggs, bird feathers, etc.) then there will naturally be a rise in poaching for those items. It is only natural.

I don't believe that W2U is saying that we need to eliminate LE Units in order to reduce poaching. I think he's simply stating a fact that the more we value elk, the higher the rate of poaching. That doesn't mean that LE hunters and trophy hunters are the ones doing the poaching. It's simply supply vs. demand. When value goes up, so does demand for that value -- and with that demand brings people looking for a way to meet that demand. It doesn't always happen legally.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> I don't believe that W2U is saying that we need to eliminate LE Units in order to reduce poaching. I think he's simply stating a fact that the more we value elk, the higher the rate of poaching. That doesn't mean that LE hunters and trophy hunters are the ones doing the poaching. It's simply supply vs. demand. When value goes up, so does demand for that value -- and with that demand brings people looking for a way to meet that demand. It doesn't always happen legally.


First, I disagree, wyo2ut has been IMHO clear about his "disdain" for LE units, so I DO believe he sees this as another reason to get rid of them.

Second, I suppose we should stop trying to increase herd populations, as that will cause more temptation for the POS poachers. If there was one elk left in the state, and it was a scrawny 5X4, it would still be at risk of being poached by idiots who feel entitled to whatever they want/desire. Using you and W2U's 'mentality', we should kill every bull/buck in the state that is over a certain size as to remove the "demand" from the equation. :roll: I'll say it again, MOST poaching is NOT motivated by trophy quality, but by greed/selfishness/stupidity.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> judas people! It's called supply and demand. Haven't any of you ever taken a business course?!
> 
> When the value of an item increases, so does the demand for that item. When the market is saturated, the demand becomes less and decreased value soon follows.
> 
> ...


I agree with the bold statement. I believe W2U is saying that making animals more valuable has increased poaching and I believe Pro is saying it isn't just trophy hunters. Both statements are true. The fact is, as bwhntr said, it is criminals poaching these animals no matter the reason.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe that W2U is saying that we need to eliminate LE Units in order to reduce poaching. I think he's simply stating a fact that the more we value elk, the higher the rate of poaching. That doesn't mean that LE hunters and trophy hunters are the ones doing the poaching. It's simply supply vs. demand. When value goes up, so does demand for that value -- and with that demand brings people looking for a way to meet that demand. It doesn't always happen legally.
> ...


I hate to disagree with you, but I think you are looking to deep into this. All I believe the brothers are saying is by certain animals being more valuable than ever there are more people poaching than before. They are not saying to get rid of these hunts they are just stating the cause. I don't see that as a knock on trophy hunters because the fact is how could you classify a criminal in the same category as a trophy hunter. Trophy hunters do everything legal, just want to hunt a more mature animal and there is nothing wrong with that. I agree with you, no matter what we do there will be people who poach. There are poachers who just kill for fun, there are poachers who kill for meat, and there are poachers who kill for antlers.

Now to the bold statement. I agree and disagree with it. I agree with the fact that these poachers are scum and do it for greed/selfishness/stupidity. Saying that, poaching for antlers falls under all three of those categories. Also the word MOST is a hard one to use without fact. None of us know who it is that is poaching the animals. I don't think it is fair to blame it on all of trophy poachers or on non-trophy poachers. I think we just need to worry about the criminals that are poaching.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> * I suppose we should stop trying to increase herd populations, as that will cause more temptation for the POS poachers*.


Why in the world would we do that??? By increasing the supply of an item, demand lessens. By using simple supply vs. demand, increasing the states herd populations will actually decrease poaching because as supply goes up, demand goes down!



proutdoors said:


> If there was one elk left in the state, and it was a scrawny 5X4, it would still be at risk of being poached by idiots who feel entitled to whatever they want/desire.


Correct! There is no way to eliminate poaching. Especially if, as you say, the animal is rare. There are very few black rhino's left in the world -- they are very valuable. Their biggest threat is to poaching! If there was only 1 elk left in the state, it would DEFINITELY be a poaching target!



proutdoors said:


> Using you and W2U's 'mentality', we should kill every bull/buck in the state that is over a certain size as to remove the "demand" from the equation. :roll:


:roll: No, Duke. that's not what we are saying. Hypothetically, having every bull/buck in the state over a certain size would be a better situation. Killing them all wouldn't reduce their value. Again, supply vs. demand. Killing them all would only increase their value.

Ending LE Hunting isn't the answer. LE Hunting isn't the problem. Value is the problem. How do you decrease the value of the elk? Why would you want to decrease the value? Is poaching a big enough problem that we need to reduce the value? Wouldn't it be better to increase supply. Heck -- maybe you could add this to your proposal!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > *Ending LE Hunting isn't the answer. LE Hunting isn't the problem. Value is the problem. How do you decrease the value of the elk? Why would you want to decrease the value? Is poaching a big enough problem that we need to reduce the value? Wouldn't it be better to increase supply. Heck -- maybe you could add this to your proposal!*
> ...


*Don't hate disagreeing with me, just try and find the error of your thinking. :lol: I do NOT believe more animals are being poached than ever. I believe the cases are more rare, but are more publicized, which is a good thing. W2U has shown disdain for BOTH trophy hunters and LE units, and when he says the trophy mentality and LE units are a MAJOR cause of poaching in todays world, what other conclusion can be obtained?*


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Funny, that is exactly what Don Peay himself said, to increase supply.
> :mrgreen: Nice to see you and SFW have so much in common.


It has nothing to do with thinking alike. It's basic economics. If you don't think this way, you don't understand. Because me and Don Peay both understand economics does not mean that we see eye to eye with wildlife management.



proutdoors said:


> I won't presume where you stand on LE units, but your bro has made it clear his disdain of LE units and the 'trophy' mentality...
> ... W2U has shown disdain for BOTH trophy hunters and LE units, and when he says the trophy mentality and LE units are a MAJOR cause of poaching in todays world, what other conclusion can be obtained?


You're making an assumption. Ever heard the saying that goes along with assuming? It makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me".
You've made some conclusions based off assumptions. You're logic seems backwards to me, and I can't come to the same conclusion as you. I think it is perfectly logical that as "trophy hunting" interest increases and our LE units improve in quality, then poaching would naturally increase as well. Again, basic economics. It might not be those "trophy hunters" doing the poaching (I would never consider a poacher a trophy hunter -- contradicting terms). But the interest and value placed on those animals is certainly having an impact on poaching. Remember when the value goes up so does demand.

Just my highfalutin opinion.

I wonder .... if I put a "trophy hunter" sticker in my truck winder, would I be a better hunter? A sticker in the window is as good as a guiding license, isn't it?

Heck -- that made me think of something else. Duke, you don't have to answer if you don't want to. It really isn't my business. I'm curious if you have your license to guide in Utah?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

PBH said:


> Why in the world would we do that??? By increasing the supply of an item, demand lessens. By using simple supply vs. demand, increasing the states herd populations will actually decrease poaching because as supply goes up, demand goes down!


Alright then, by that theory, Having LE hunts increases the number of trophy sized animals and herd sizes...so that being the case LE hunts are actually increasing supply therefore demand for poaching is going down. Good thing for LE hunts!!!


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I think you said that tongue in cheek, but, just in case you weren't, say it with me: Limited Entry Hunt

Not by nature a thing that is in great supply.

Even if you add more, the tsunami of applicants gets bigger every year. The competition to create trophy hunting makes the commodity even more expensive it seems. Take the legal and increasingly common method for quality guides. Lead a crew of guys working for you statewide so that you can get a client with an auction tag. You are spending a lot on providing the service with the end goal of shooting one of those deer/ elk with an appropriate compensation in mind. Serious outfitters create serious price increases which people are willing to pay for those extremely limited no boundary opportunities. Trouble is, the deer have no clue where they live or how much they cost. And a poacher who used to view himself as a trophy hunter goes to the Henry range and saves himself 90,000 dollars. Maybe poachers want to do it right, but are camera shy and don't want to end up on a DVD.

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/news/08-01 ... d_buck.php

To hunt the Henries with 0 points today you can wait 15 years, pay somewhere near 100,000 dollars ( I thought that is what I heard the oil kid got it for at auction)....OR

you can poach it and risk less jail time than 15 years and much less in fines than 100,000. You can't say that ratcheting up areas in quality like that won't affect someone's desire to go poach there. This was one of a couple of bucks they found on the Henry Range this year. Poachers blow. I think there should be a season on poachers and I am anxious to join the first group of poacher hunters that forms. I think that would be the most fun of all. Still, you can't say that creating environments that are so limited in opportunity like the Henry range is not associated with someone's desire to go poach there. If I had a poacher hunting group where would we have the most luck? Where do I place my game trail cameras and where do I put up base camp from November through February? Easy. The Henry range. No question. There is already some idiot poaching down there and he is sure to be a repeat offender. Plus then I get the tag!!!!!! Sweet. Who is with me and who agrees that we start down there?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Say what you will, but I don't buy the argument taht LE hunts are the cause of poaching. That in theory means if we eliminate all LE hunts then the poaching will stop...BS! BTW, I have a family member who buys a bull elk tag on the San Juan nearly every year...They do not cost $100,000. A few tags a year go for those costs but not all, try not to sensationalize the situation.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

bwhtr -- you are correct. Eliminating LE hunts won't stop poaching. Poaching will continue for as long as there are ANY limits in hunting or fishing.

LE Hunts simply increase the value of the animals. LE Hunts are NOT causing the poaching. The increased value of the animals drives up demand for those animals. As mentioned by SteepNDeep, that increased value will cause people to do one of the following:

A. Wait your turn to draw a tag
B. Spend the money to purchase an available tag (limited #, high $$)
C. Poach


No one is asking to eliminate the LE hunts. But, it is undisputable that LE Hunts increase the value of our wildlife.


Unfortunately, we are not far from a European style of hunting, where only the rich hunt. That would be a very extreme version of LE hunting. Do you suppose poaching rates would increase, or decrease in a system like that? My bet would say a big increase in poaching rates.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I was speaking in extremes, but part of the point is that extremes do exist. Your uncle's tag didn't cost that much but some do go for that for that area. It happens. 

Also, of course people just slaughter critters on a whim that have no value as a trophy. Even the courts recognize a difference though. There are stiffer fines and penalties for poaching animals considered to be trophy specimens. BTW I called the poaching hotline last week. I'll call anytime I think there has been an animal poached with as much detail as I can offer.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I feel if we always speak in extremes it drives the wrong message. Especially since the extremes account for a very small percentage of the tags. Sure landowner tags are still expensive, but they are not $100,000 expensive. There are groups that are advocates and speak out for us hunters. They have alot of pull on political levels. These groups are able to donate large amounts of money to help our cause. Poaching will always exist, I fell the same as Pro that poaching is not worse now than it used to be, it is just much more publicised. This is one area the media is helping our cause by making a big deal out of poachers and the fines that accompany them.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> I fell the same as Pro that poaching is not worse now than it used to be, it is just much more publicised. This is one area the media is helping our cause by making a big deal out of poachers and the fines that accompany them.


Sadly, though, wildlife enforcement officials don't agree. I think you are hiding your head in the sand if you think poaching isn't on the rise...

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6113963

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/09 ... nted=print

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRel ... RN20080207

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_4878.aspx

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=3404

http://www.iowagameandfish.com/hunting/ ... A_0106_01/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A961958260


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Are you talking about more poaching cases as a whole (which can be a number of factors) or are you talking about the crime rate of poaching (which you would factor in a percentage of poaching cases compared to the current population)? Or do you even know?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I am talking about the crime rate of poaching...and so are the wildlife officers! In fact, despite fewer wildlife officers, even the cases are going up!

According to Jeff Hagener, Director, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, "Poaching is a growing problem, one that occurs statewide and year-round. Poachers take some of Montana’s biggest and best game specimens, robbing law-abiding citizens of opportunities to see and legally harvest those animals. 

Often the culprits make big money from their illegal activities. A record-book deer or elk mount can sell for tens of thousands of dollars. And some wealthy individuals will pay great sums of money to be illegally guided to trophy animals. 

FWP game wardens have broken several major poaching rings in recent years. But with just 70 wardens each covering an average of 2,000 square miles (about the size of Delaware), they can’t put a major dent in poaching without help."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> ]Sadly, though, wildlife enforcement officials don't agree. I think you are hiding your head in the sand if you think poaching isn't on the rise...


I question the reports of poaching being more common today than 20-30 years ago. One reason is people are reporting poaching more now than in the past, wildlife enforcement officials are able to catch more poachers through better forensics than in the past, the public has less tolerance for it now than in the past, among other reasons. You have made numerous claims that one of the reasons the 3 point antler restrictions supposedly didn't work was all the illegal bucks killed each year. Is that not by definition poaching? You implied it was several hundred deer EACH YEAR that were illegally killed. I doubt several hundred deer/elk are poached in Utah strictly because of their trophy status each year. A 'trophy' poacher will normally poach one animal, a 'normal' poacher will kill as many animals as he can. Also, the poacher who is a 'normal' poacher is likely to kill does/cows, which is far more devastating to the herd than the poaching of a 'trophy' class animal. Increasing the 'supply' or decreasing the 'demand' for trophy class animals would do very little in the big picture of poaching, but a decrease in tolerance of poaching and an increase in people policing illegal activities WILL make huge improvements. To focus on a SMALL percentage of the poaching 'causes' is inane. I detest ALL poachers, but I detest the poacher that shoots a whole herd of does and fawns more than the poacher who shoots a 30" buck on the Henries.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Consider this article from Iowa's Game and Fish site:
http://www.iowagameandfish.com/hunting/ ... A_0106_01/

*Iowa's Deer Poachers: Stealing The Trophies
The Hawkeye State's whitetails and the humans who hunt them are both feeling the impact of this increasingly prevalent crime. (January 2006)*

It says: "According to several conservation officers and wildlife biologists of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the poaching of white-tailed deer...

[blockquote:2ndtgbx7][exclamation:2ndtgbx7][/exclamation:2ndtgbx7]_© 2008 Intermedia Outdoors, Inc.

I've removed the cut-and-paste material taken from the IowaGameAndFish.com Web site. Links to materials on other Web sites are fine, but copying and pasting anything more than excerpts from copyrighted sources is against the forum rules. I don't like getting letters from people's attorneys (it's happened on a couple of other occasions) complaining about copyright infringements. Thanks! - Petersen_[/blockquote:2ndtgbx7]


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Increasing the 'supply' or decreasing the 'demand' for trophy class animals would do very little in the big picture of poaching, but a decrease in tolerance of poaching and an increase in people policing illegal activities WILL make huge improvements.


that's called an oxymoron!

by increasing poaching penalties and increasing enforcement of poaching this, in effect, would lower the demand for trophy class animals. It would lower the demand for poachers.

Even though you don't think you understand supply and demand, you are using it in your suggestion! See -- even you can learn something new!

FWIW - how do you know what a poacher poaches? Are there really different classes of poachers? I guess I learned something new today as well!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

W2U, do you have any thoughts of your own, or do you only believe what you read from 'experts'? Has common sense and taking a deep breath and looking around you and making your OWN conclusion ever occurred to you? Seriously. :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I call common sense listening to the experts...I call being stupid not listening to the experts.

Example: If I were to have an anual medical exam tell me that I have a very serious form of cancer, I would listen to the expert's advice even if I felt good.

Common sense tells me that when experts through the entire western part of our country say that the disease of big game poaching is on the rise that I should believe them. Somehow, you seem more like the type of person who, when the doctor says you have a very serious illness, would simply resort to prayer. I wouldn't.

One thing I have learned in life is that the appearance of what is true doesn't always equate to the reality of what is true...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Example: If I were to have an anual medical exam tell me that I have a very serious form of cancer, I would listen to the expert's advice even if I felt good.
> 
> Common sense tells me that when experts through the entire western part of our country say that the disease of big game poaching is on the rise that I should believe them. Somehow, you seem more like the type of person who, when the doctor says you have a very serious illness, would simply resort to prayer. I wouldn't.


Well they can be wrong because they were wrong in my case. The doctor told my parents I will be in a Coma for a very long time. In reality I was in a coma for 3 days. The doctors said I will be a vegetable, but I'm not. The doctors said I would never be able to walk again or even stand because i would pass out. The first time I put on leg braces then I walked 20 steps. I have been able to walk on a thread mill for 1 mile so far. Yes experts have a better chance of being right, but they are also WRONG sometimes.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I call common sense listening to the experts...I call being stupid not listening to the experts.
> 
> Example: If I were to have an anual medical exam tell me that I have a very serious form of cancer, I would listen to the expert's advice even if I felt good.
> 
> ...


No, I would start praying, then get a second opinion and look at ALL my options, and then use common sense to determine which direction to go with. I have a good friend whose dad was told he had cancer, the Huntsman Center (experts in the field) told him they couldn't help and he had less than 6 months to live. That was 2+ years ago. My friend who is beyond wealthy looked for other 'answers'(including prayer), and found a cancer center in Illinois that said they could/would treat his dad, so they fly out there once a month and he is getting BETTER. This is because they didn't just take the 'experts' word for it, they used their noggins, exercised faith, followed common sense. This friend and his dad are leaving for Alaska in a few weeks to hunt Brown Bears, so much for listening to the 'experts' and nothing else. :? I happen to agree with your last sentence, reading studies/reports/OPINIONS are interesting, but at some point common sense has to be used. Theory and lab results only get you so far.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> W2U, do you have any thoughts of your own, or do you only believe what you read from 'experts'? Has common sense and taking a deep breath and looking around you and making your OWN conclusion ever occurred to you? Seriously. :?


Duke -- step back a minute and take a deep breath. Feel better?

How do you come to your own conclusions? How do you develop your own opinions?

For me, I study the subject. I find out as much information as I can. I go to credible sources to find out what they have learned. I apply what those credible sources have learned to what I have learned. I apply personal experiences to the knowledge I have gathered from other sources. In order to form an educated opinion on a subject, you must look to other sources and apply them.

If you simply relied on your own information, would you be able to determine with certainty that the world is round? Would you know for a fact that a proton has a positive charge, a neutron has a neutral charge, and an electron has a negative charge? Or, do you have to use credible external sources to base your knowledge on?

W2U is actually very smart by posting credible sources to back his opinion. It simply shows that his arguments are backed by other people that have reached the same conclusions.

Where do you gather your information? Personal experience alone? I hope not! If so, would you argue that the moon is made of cheese?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> My friend who is beyond wealthy looked for other 'answers'(including prayer), and found a cancer center in Illinois that said they could/would treat his dad, so they fly out there once a month and he is getting BETTER.


Perfect example!! The use of multiple sources! That's exactly what W2U is doing by posting mulitple cites! They all come to the same conclusion. Multiple experts coming to the same conclusion. That's why we look for additional sources of information. One source might be wrong (as in the above mentioned medical cases). However, multiple sources are less likely to be consistently wrong.

So, why are you criticizing W2U for posting multiple studies that all point to the same conlcusion?

If it was a single source, you'd all have a case to jump down his throat. However, if all the sources point to the same conclusion -- then maybe it really is a duck!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I never have said the experts are never wrong...BUT, I do believe that the experts--especially when they have proof to back up their opinion--are way more often right than wrong.

By the way, Pro, didn't your friend still take an expert's word? You also said that "they" couldn't help him...is it not beyond belief that "they" really couldn't? I don't know the circumstances at all...but, isn't it possible that the Illinois treatment center could help him when the cancer center at the U couldn't? Your friend found a second source of help from other experts...perhaps even a second opinion, but he still listened to the experts advice.

As far as big game poaching, the experts--from what I have found--are ALL saying the same thing: big game poaching is on the rise because of the greed associated with trophy antlers. When/if I start seeing experts with conflicting opinions on that subject, I will read the information and make up my own opinion.

Also, in my life I have repeatedly seen instances where my eyes deceived me...and, it took an expert to prove my eyes wrong!


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

PBH said:


> If it was a single source, you'd all have a case to jump down his throat. However, if all the sources point to the same conclusion -- then maybe it really is a duck!


Kind of like ""Global Warming""?


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

I pereface what I say by saying that I am fully aware that what ought to be is not allways what is. But, on the surface it might seem that a scarcity of good women would increase the value of a prostitute. But this is not entirely true. A prostitute is still a prostitute and it is the willingness of men to settle for something less than the genuine article that determines her worth. A trophy is a trophy because it is rare, hard to come by, takes more time, takes more work, takes more skill and takes more luck. The very act of poaching ought to diminish the value of a "trophy" not increase it. LE hunting does not contrbute to poaching by increasing the value of "trophies". It is really the willingness of some to take short cuts to gain a "trohpy" ( poaching itself, buying antlers on the black market, or even paying exorbitant somes to make the aquisition of a "trophy" easier) that prostitutes trophy hunting through poaching.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Its good to see the brotherly love here today also.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> How do you come to your own conclusions? How do you develop your own opinions?
> 
> Where do you gather your information? Personal experience alone? I hope not! If so, would you argue that the moon is made of cheese?


 I come to my own conclusions by reading studies/reports/OPINIONS that are interesting, but at some point common sense has to be used. Theory and lab results only get you so far. I have an engineering degree, and the worst engineers are the ones who only follow theorems and formulas w/o seeing how they work in the 'field'. The good ones use the same info, but apply some thought and field applications to their designs. I like to 'get my hands dirty', so if I was able to do so with the moon and it felt. smelled, and tasted like cheese, I would likely believe it is made of cheese. I like reading research, studies, opinions from 'experts' in many different fields including game management. But, I still like to 'get my hands dirty' and see how it works in the field before making a firm conclusion on the validity of my 'informed' views/opinions. I grew up on a cattle operation, we used science, but we also used 'sense' when culling cows/calves/bulls. We often culled cattle with great pedigrees and kept 'poorly' bred cattle because they out-produced the 'blue bloods'. Science said the 'blue bloods' would throw better calves, but LIFE disagreed. I follow that same mentality in how I come to conclusions. Sometimes science is 100% right, but often nature throws a curve ball. I again come back to balance, listen and learn from the 'experts', but then apply some hands on training to ENHANCE your knowledge and opinions.



> If it was a single source, you'd all have a case to jump down his throat. However, if all the sources point to the same conclusion -- then maybe it really is a duck!


Have you ever heard of cherry picking? :roll: Ditto suave300 on global warming, all the 'experts' say one thing and anyone who says different is dismissed as "ignorant". Where the hell have we seen that around here? :shock:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I think the we need to consider the facts that Forensic science is 100 times more advanced than it was years ago, and also more people are making the phone calls to turn in poachers when 30 years ago it was acceptible. Those factors would severally retard the numbers. I also wonder who these "experts" are. I don't take the term expert to heart until I know why they are. Are these the same "experts" that are claiming global warming?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

campfire said:


> I pereface what I say by saying that I am fully aware that what ought to be is not allways what is. But, on the surface it might seem that a scarcity of good women would increase the value of a prostitute. But this is not entirely true. A prostitute is still a prostitute and it is the willingness of men to settle for something less than the genuine article that determines her worth. A trophy is a trophy because it is rare, hard to come by, takes more time, takes more work, takes more skill and takes more luck. The very act of poaching ought to diminish the value of a "trophy" not increase it. LE hunting does not contrbute to poaching by increasing the value of "trophies". It is really the willingness of some to take short cuts to gain a "trohpy" ( poaching itself, buying antlers on the black market, or even paying exorbitant somes to make the aquisition of a "trophy" easier) that prostitutes trophy hunting through poaching.


Well said!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

+1 1/8


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> I think the we need to consider the facts that Forensic science is 100 times more advanced than it was years ago, and also more people are making the phone calls to turn in poachers when 30 years ago it was acceptible. Those factors would severally retard the numbers. I also wonder who these "experts" are. I don't take the term expert to heart until I know why they are. Are these the same "experts" that are claiming global warming?


The experts are the conservation officers doing the work...I think they have the credentials and the experience to say that poaching is increasing.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Check out this trophy doe and fawn that got poached. Anyone want to guess what she scores because of the size of her nipples?

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/news/07-11/doe_fawn.php

**** TROPHY HUNTERS :lol: :lol:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The experts are the conservation officers doing the work...I think they have the credentials and the experience to say that poaching is increasing.


You might "think" they have those credentials, but that simply does not make it true. How long have they been on the job investigating poaching activities? Can they give an educated guess how the proceedures are different now compared to 30 years ago? Do they know how many people don't report incidents compared to how many didn't report 30 years ago? The fact is you don't know either.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Check out this trophy doe and fawn that got poached. Anyone want to guess what she scores because of the size of her nipples?
> 
> http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/news/07-11/doe_fawn.php
> 
> **** TROPHY HUNTERS :lol: :lol:


**** trophy poachers!!! If we didn't have these LE hunts that doe and fawn would still be alive!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > I think the we need to consider the facts that Forensic science is 100 times more advanced than it was years ago, and also more people are making the phone calls to turn in poachers when 30 years ago it was acceptible. Those factors would severally retard the numbers. I also wonder who these "experts" are. I don't take the term expert to heart until I know why they are. Are these the same "experts" that are claiming global warming?
> ...


Interesting post. Question, do police chiefs have the 'credentials' in law enforcement? If so, why don't police chiefs make policies on issues like gun restrictions/laws? Do doctors make hospital policies/laws? Do Generals decide when to go to war? The answer is NO. Generals would make terrible policy if allowed to do so, so would doctors and police chiefs. They are too close to the 'action' and get tunnel vision and become 'jilted' by being on the 'front line'. Most police chiefs in urban areas favor strict gun laws, dang good thing there is oversight to prevent them from enacting/enforcing horrible laws. Same goes for wildlife enforcement personnel, they see things from only one side of the coin. In order for balance to be applied, both sides of the coin MUST be considered/looked at. Global warming is another great example of this, horrible policies are being put into play because people are getting tunnel vision on a very complex issue.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Same goes for wildlife enforcement personnel, they see things from only one side of the coin. In order for balance to be applied, both sides of the coin MUST be considered/looked at.


Aren't you making an assumption that wildlife personnel don't fish and hunt? They see things from both sides. That's a pathetic argument.

A general might not be the person making the decision to go to war, but he is definitely the person to make the decision of how to go to battle. Isn't it the same with fisheries and wildlife biologists? They aren't making policy either. The Wildlife Board does that. Not the biologists. Biologists certainly can make recomendations -- just like the general.

Personally, I'll take a biologists opinion on a biological issue over an engineers any day!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> Aren't you making an assumption that wildlife personnel don't fish and hunt? They see things from both sides. That's a pathetic argument.


Not anymore than I would make an assumption that doctors never get sick, that police officers don't own guns, that generals are never civilians. How absurd. I am saying that being on that front lines alters one's views on certain subjects and make them get 'tunnel vision' and/or become jaded in their opinions. I am NOT saying they are bad people, just that there should be built in buffers to prevent unwise policies being enacted.



> A general might not be the person making the decision to go to war, but he is definitely the person to make the decision of how to go to battle. Isn't it the same with fisheries and wildlife biologists? They aren't making policy either. The Wildlife Board does that. Not the biologists. Biologists certainly can make recomendations -- just like the general.
> 
> Personally, *I'll take a biologists opinion on a biological issue over an engineers any day!*


Making recommendations is fine, but being the 'only' authority on ALL issues is NOT!

I'll take the view of a biologist over that of an engineer most of the time as well, but when biologists disagree on MOST subjects. I also would take a big game biologist's opinion over a fish biologist's opinion on big game related issues, so just being a biologist is enough. There are lots of 'experts' in many fields that give bad advice, where so called 'ignorant' people give good advice. Which would you listen to more, an Economics professor at a university who has done nothing but teach, or a high school drop out who has made great investments and is a multi-millionaire? I myself would listen to the guy who has applied knowledge, not the guy who just teaches it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

**** trophy hunters/LE units!

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8783179

If only we would stop 'trophy' hunting this would never happen. :roll:


----------



## birdhammer (Apr 2, 2008)

they need to catch these pricks and send them to each and everyone of us one at a time to show them some good reasons not to poach a few thousand woopins surely would set them straight


----------

