# Is DWR Screwin Us??? Please Read and Voice Opinion!!!



## weatherby_man (Feb 5, 2008)

Last year, two friends and I decided to skip out on work early and spend the afternoon trying to fill our spike elk tags. One of my buddies claimed he knew of a perfect spot that was his "elk honey hole". We headed out on the two-hour drive to get there. It was a warm day and as we drove my buddy shared stories of the spike elk they had seen in this area as well as the nice mature bulls that hopefully we could get a glimpse of.

As we were pulling up to the spot where we would start our hike into the area, we noticed another truck was already parked there. We started harassing my buddy because he told us nobody else hunted this area. We pulled up and noticed something sticking out of the back of the truck. It looked weird, but we were excited and started getting all our gear together and getting ready. Before I threw my backpack on I decided to go see what was in the back of the truck. As I got closer, I realized it was an antler sticking up out of the truck. I went around to the back and there was the head of a nice, mature 5-point bull elk with fresh blood still dripping. I yelled out to my buddy... "Are you sure this is a spike only unit?" his quick reply was "I'm positive, why?"

He and my other friend came over and couldn't believe their eyes. We briefly discussed the options of what could have happened or what might be going on. We noticed that there was a tag cut out and attached to the antler. I jumped into the back of the truck and checked the tag out... it was for an "any bull". We then discussed what we should do about it. Of course we could have just went on our merry way and hunted the afternoon like we had planned, we could wait for them and confront them about it (I was a little nervous about that option), or we could call it in and report it. We decided to do the right thing and call it in as poaching even though it would delay our hunt.

My phone was the only one that worked and luckily had one bar of service, so we called to report it to the DWR. Meanwhile my other friend got his camera and took pictures of the elk head, the tag, the truck and license #. We spent a good amount of time on the phone trying to explain where we were at, what we were seeing, and that someone needed to get there before these people left. The DWR said they had an officer about an hour or so away and they would send him to our location. Feeling we had done all that we could, we decided to start hiking and hopefully find us some elk before dark.

We had only hiked for a half hour or so when we spotted some people walking down towards the truck. We pulled up our binoculars and there were two guys... each carrying a quarter of an elk out. We were hiking in the same direction as they were coming down so we decided to stay on course. We ran into them in a thicket of trees and we started the normal hunting small chat. Both hunters were younger... probably around 17. We asked if they were up there alone and one of the kids said that his father was with them. We could tell that they probably weren't just poachers trying to score some meat or a trophy mount so my buddy asked if they knew that this was a "spike only" area. They looked confused and looked at each other and said that they didn't. My buddy then explained that it was a spike only unit and that they had shot this bull illegally. He told them that we had called the DWR and that an officer was on his way up. We told them that they should stay at their truck and not try to run because it would end up worse for them. We advised them to be compliant and honest with the officer and things would work out. They thanked us, apologized and said they would wait.

We hunted the rest the evening but never got into any elk as these hunters had already scared all the elk out of the area. It was a disappointing hunt for us as we had taken work off, driven a far distance, hiked and hunted hard but were not successful because these hunters had not educated themselves on boundaries and where they should have actually been hunting. We came upon the spot where the elk had been killed and gutted and it was exactly where my buddy thought the elk would be. Who knows if they really knew it was a spike only area or not... sure they could have lied to us, but we gave them the benefit of the doubt. (Besides, they would have been really dumb poachers if they were really trying to poach). All the signs pointed to ignorance, lack of educating themselves, and stupidity on their part. Which in my mind is just as bad as poaching.

We got back to the truck after dark. We checked it to make sure it hadn't been keyed or the tires slashed . All was well so we headed back home. On the way home we called the DWR to see what had happened. Apparently the people didn't wait for the officer, but using the license plate number we provided, they tracked them down at their home. They said they left because they didn't want the meat to spoil. They didn't have too many more details to give us that night but said they would keep in touch.

The DWR never contacted us after that point... we had to keep bothering them to get any info. We managed to get some emails from them and from the actual officer that showed up. We found out that not only had they shot and killed the 5-point that was in the back of their truck, they had also shot a 6-point bull but couldn't find it. They took the officer up to where they shot the 6-point. They found blood and followed the blood trail for some time, but could never find the trophy class 6-point they had shot. We were told that they were cited and convicted. My buddy decided to write the officer and the DWR about receiving an any bull tag for that area as a reward (found in the proclamation). We had no idea at the time we reported the incident that this was even an option, it came to our attention after the fact. The following is their email exchanges:

Us:
"This is Joe Shmoe (name changed), the one that reported the poaching incident up in the 'mountains' (area changed) on the last day of the elk hunt last week. I was telling my brother about it and he mentioned that the proclamation says that if you report a poaching and they catch the guys you get a tag for that animal in that area the next year. Is that true? Thanks for you response."

DWR:
"Yes and No. It depends on the circumstances that surround the incident. If the circumstances was a wanton destruction case, where the suspect intentionally or knowingly causes injury to a regulated animal illegally, then "yes" a tag could be given. However, in this case I truly believe that the intent of taking an animal illegally was not their intent. But in lieu of a tag, monetary rewards can be given upon conviction of the suspects. I fully intend on getting what I can for you, and I wanted to say Thank You. We truly need more sportsmen like yourself.

It may take a little while for you to get the reward, but please keep in touch. If you have anymore questions please call or e-mail."

Us:
"I appreciate your response. I do not wish to receive a monetary award regardless of the outcome on the poaching issue. I know that a situation like this is up to the discretion of the DWR and that you will do what you can in this situation. I do, however, disagree with the division's stance on this issue. The proclamation provides that:

_If you provide information that leads to the successful prosecution of another person for the wanton destruction (poaching) of any of the following-buck deer, buck pronghorn, bull elk, bull moose, bison, desert bighorn ram, Rocky Mountain bighorn ram or Rocky Mountain goat-on any once-in-a-lifetime species, limited entry or management bull elk hunt area in the state, you may receive a permit to hunt the same species on the same area where the violation occurred. _

According to the information contained in the proclamation a person is entitled to a permit for any "successful prosecution of another person for the wanton destruction." While I agree that wanton can be defined as "intentionally or knowingly" causing the harm to the regulated animal, I do not agree that it requires a person to know that the activity is illegal. I believe that is simply takes into account that a person who accidentally (as in where a person hits an animal with a car) should not be given a ticket for poaching. The hunter intentionally destroyed these animals when they pulled the trigger. The fact that they were ignorant of where they were hunting is no excuse.

Additionally, you and I should be able to agree that this policy was adopted in order to encourage people to report poachers. By splitting hairs in this fashion, the DWR will continue to foster distrust by hunters. Everyone I have talked to who had read the proclamation agreed that I should be awarded a tag. When I told them of your email and the DWR's response they all said the same thing: "that's bull___!"

If the DWR ever wants to foster good relations with hunters they should start by doing the right thing here. I spotted people poaching and I immediately called and reported the incident. A conservation officer showed up and cited them for poaching. Their intent in killing the animals (other than by accidental means) should be irrelevant. They poached two mature bull elk in a limited entry area. This appears to be a clear case to any normal hunter who has read the proclamation. Splitting hairs will perpetuate the distrust that hunters have of the DWR. I'm sure that everyone who hears about this incident will think twice about whether they should work with and trust the DWR.

I want to thank you again for your response. I understand that you hands may be tied, but I think that you and I both can agree that the DWR is making a mistake in situations like these. Please remove my name from any list to receive a monetary award. Utah is a great place to hunt and any money that the division wishes to award me should be used to further conservation efforts."

We tried contacting them a few more times but to no avail. They claim their hands are tied and would never fully explain ALL of the requirements of "wanton destruction", just that our case did not meet those requirements. So we want to know what you all think about this situation. What is your view and take on this situation? Does anyone have any advice on what we should do? Or know anyone we can talk to that is higher up in the ranks? Do we have a valid point that we should receive at least one tag for the killed bull (let alone another one for the other 6 point that was shot and bleeding)? Or should we just let it die. We declined the monetary compensation because we feel the DWR should use all of its cash resources to better our hunting opportunities in Utah, but feel a little betrayed that they "nit pick" their way out of a promise that is written in the proclamation. Please share your thoughts and opinions. We appreciate it and thanks for taking the time to read this long story.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Interesting post...... I think that the important thing to note is that you did the right thing by calling the incident into the DWR. Whether you do or do not recieve compensation should not be the issue or a deciding factor into if you would call them again in a similar situation....you did the right thing...continue doing the right thing.

It does say in the proclamation "WANTON" destruction of wildlife....Wanton in the dictionary is discribed as such:

*Immoral or unchaste; lewd.
Gratuitously cruel; merciless.
Marked by unprovoked, gratuitous maliciousness; capricious and unjust: wanton destruction.
Unrestrainedly excessive: wanton extravagance; wanton depletion of oil reserves.
Luxuriant; overabundant: wanton tresses.
Frolicsome; playful.
Undisciplined; spoiled.
Obsolete. Rebellious; refractory.*

Now, I don't think that the situation you described is an example of the above definition. I am not condoneing by any means the negligence that the hunters had in not knowing exactly where or what the boundary lines are...whether it was laziness or just pure misunderstanding I'm afraid we will never know. However, if the purpose for rewarding a tag is to stop POACHERS (like these a wipes on the Vernon) then NO I don't think you should get a tag. If the purpose for rewarding the tag is to encourage people to police each other then SURE a tag should be awarded. However, I believe the purpose for rewarding the tag is the first reason and not the second. JMO. Sure a tag in a coveted trophy area would be sweet but to me it sounds as if you are complaining that you did the right thing and didn't get compensated for it. She we get some reward for doing the RIGHT thing? We should always do the RIGHT thing! You did the right thing and I'm sure the "perps" got fined and have learned a valuable lesson. But we should all be each other's police and keep our eyes and ears open...it helps the survival of the passion that we love.

You may not like my opinion and others might disagree with me...but it is what it is!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

_If you provide information that leads to the successful prosecution of another person for the wanton destruction (poaching) of any of the following-buck deer, buck pronghorn, bull elk, bull moose, bison, desert bighorn ram, Rocky Mountain bighorn ram or Rocky Mountain goat-on any once-in-a-lifetime species, limited entry or management bull elk hunt area in the state, you *may* receive a permit to hunt the same species on the same area where the violation occurred. _

It says you may recieve, not will receive. You did the right thing, feel good about it and let it go. Maybe it the Good Karma will come back to you.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

Doing the right thing is a reward in itself for sure, but... you deserve a tag... The state is too stingy with elk tags as it is. Let ONE go to people who did a lot to help our wildlife. Makes more sense to me to reward with a tag then to reward with money. You might not even harvest with the reward tag, then the State is out nothing. I'd have given you a tag. No matter the attitude of the perps, the damage was done. More importantly, now they know and if they are as innocent as they sound, they won't do it again. Yo saved more elk. You should get to kill those elk you saved...


----------



## soules2007 (Oct 29, 2007)

Trust/Integrity and the DWR/DNR. Not sure but the DWR/DNR has not had Trust or Integrity for some time, and they do not care what the sportsman thinks. My mistrust became complete right after Katrina when my Non res tags went to waste and the DWRs response was nothing short of tough luck. So the situation with your tags suprises me not a bit. Now if you were able to get some air time, jut a little pub. Then a tag might find its way into your wallet, The DWRs stance on tags for poaching is mearly for show, and the people who get them is in no small way connected to the media attention the incident gets. You can split hairs about "wanton" with the scoundrels at the DWR all day long in the end you will lose, Should have taken the cash :lol: .


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Despite the attitude of the poachers, I feel like their ignorance/negligence in not understanding the laws/boundaries is just as bad as knowing you are in the wrong area and shooting an animal. It is the responsibility of a hunter to know such things. All of these different levels of poaching are silly. I understand there are a few exceptions, that might require more minimal consequences, but, IMO, you should have gotten the tag. I hope you can get it worked out to where everyone is happy. It seems like as many extra elk tags as they are giving out one more to an honest sportsman wouldn't make a huge difference.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I agree with "UZ-A-BOW". I don't think these guys really fit the "Wanton" definitions that I found. 

Here are the Definitions that I found. Sorry guys, but you did do the right thing and people got educated. If they get caught another time then I believe they would fall under the "Wanton" definition.

“WANTON”
Lacking reason or provocation.
Done out of a desire to cause harm.
Unrestrained, heedless of reasonable limits, or characterized by greed and extravagance.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

*Nice job to you and your buddy and Thanks for turning them in.* My 1.00 worth is that they are poachers and got cought.I dont care if you have a tag for that game. You should know the laws and know where you are at. If you are not sure find out befor going there. I say yes You guys should get a tag aleast one tag and you guys decided who gets the tag or all three should get a tag. If you guys dont get a tag or some money it will be hard for you guys to turn some body in again for it.But im sure you guys would and I would hope you guys would do it again no matter what.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Good on you guys, I agree with the rest, no tag. It is a loop hole but where do they draw the line? That is it. Look @ the bright side, the one humans that knew about your honey hole will not be hunting there any time soon, or more than likley ever again. So the fact of the matter is you killed two birds with one stone. If they offer cash I would look at that as bonus land, I would of had enough satisfaction catching the guys.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

I have to go along with you, a tag should be given to you for turning them in. I would much rather have a tag than cash.


----------



## weatherby_man (Feb 5, 2008)

Here are a few more thoughts I have had as I read your posts:

First off, we are all good guys and were glad to be able to help correct these hunters and their 'ignorance'. We feel that we did do the right thing and I am sure we all would do it again as we care about hunting and the opportunities that we have in Utah.

1) UZ-A-BOW, huntaholic, and middlefork-
As you have described, there a million different ways to justify "wanton". So does the DWR use this word to be able to manipulate each case to fit whether they want to reward with a tag or not??? The officer could never tell us how it was NOT wanton, just the fact that this case wasn't. They would never reply to us when we asked if they would explain the requirements and why our case wasn't. I feel it could be justified either way. Middlefork, I feel your suggestion of "may receive a tag" does have some validity, but I doubt the DWR would ever say, "ya you helped turn in poachers, but the proclamation says you '_may_' receive a tag and we just don't want to give you one".

2) When does ignorance = not poaching???
First off is we will never know if they were telling the truth about their knowledge of the area. So does it really matter that these hunters did not know they were in a spike only area??? Regardless of them "saying" they didn't know... *2 trophy class bull elk were illegally killed (poached) in a Limited Entry unit in Utah.* That is a fact and I feel the motive or negligence of the hunters is irrelevant. Next to "wanton destruction" in the proclamation it says "poaching" in parentheses. So if they classify or relate wanton destruction as poaching, can anyone deny that these two bull elk were NOT poached??? Just because they had a tag of the same species does not make it less than poaching. Had we NOT stopped them they would have continued to "poach" there for who knows how long.

3) How can they differentiate the rewards for different "types" of poaching, but not penalize differently? The perps were cited as poaching, so if they want to differentiate "types" of poaching, they need to do it on both sides. Sure we feel good that it was the right thing. The point is the DWR promises something in writing for everyone to see, then doesn't keep their word. We would be fine if feeling good was our reward, but if that's what the DWR wants as our reward they should state in the proclamation that "feeling good about yourself" is the reward instead of a tag. I feel that they just spin this the way that they want so they don't have to do what they say. To me its about trusting the DWR to actually live up to their word and do as promised.

4) Hogan, that's quite the loop hole to have to be able to manipulate each case how they want and inevitably sour the relationship (and lose the trust and respect of the public) between sportsman and the DWR. Where does it end? To me they didn't even start? The fact that they would offer a cash reward, shows that the DWR felt we were entitled to a reward for stopping poaching. They just decided they would choose which one they would offer.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Ok here's some food for thought, #1 How do you know they killed 2 "trophy elk? From what I have read they killed one and wounded another. Bull elk are very hearty and the bull could very well be alive today. #2 Look up the poaching out in Vernon, that is when you WILL get a tag with no questions asked. Every year on just about every unit, someone shoots a branch antlered bull on accident. If they had to give a tag to everyone of those cases there really would not leave anything to the draw. These knuckheads were hunting mature elk during a hunting season, packing out the meat, doing everything by the book. I am certain the DNR must take a tag out of the pool to give to you, so in order to do that the fines from their actions would have to cover the cost of the tag, court, their time etc. It does not sound like these guys will get the book thrown at them, which it shouldn't. The Vernon case is text book for "wanton", "poaching". etc. etc. They were also hunting when no season was taking place. Cutting off the heads and leaving the body to rot. 
Poaching is also keeping a fish that is the wrong size up to Strawberry, but should they reward someone that has turned in a "poacher" with a fishing tag the next year? the DNR would be out of business. Good job and sorry, that is just my point of view.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

weatherby_man said:


> The point is the DWR promises something in writing for everyone to see, then doesn't keep their word.


I've got to disagree here. The promise in the proc says "wanton" disregard. In other words intentionally breaking the law. If these guys were just stupid, careless or confused, that just doesn't qualify as "wanton."

Now my personal opinion is that the DWR shouldn't determine the reward based upon the motive of the poacher for all the very reasons mentioned here. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of the "wanton" word. I mean, I just don't see a good reason to differentiate and plenty of reasons not to.

The DWR is a government agency. They don't have any incentives for "Screwin' Us" as you put it. It would actually benefit the DWR to be more liberal in handing out tag rewards for good citizens who reported poaching crimes. Still, as a government agency, they have to follow the rules as closely and fairly as they can, and in this case, I've got to agree with them -- these people's ignorant poaching isn't the same as wanton poaching. I do think the rule needs to be rewritten, though.


----------



## Lycan (Sep 22, 2008)

I believe a lot of good points have been made on both sides of the dispute. I have to agree that the key word in the proclamation is _"may"_. Yeah, it's basically legalese for the purpose of protecting their own butt so they don't come out as complete liars, but it is what it is. Now, I do have raised concerns that the poachers could have been playing dumb and used that excuse to get off light. I mean, come on, how many people have been pulled over for speeding and said, "I didn't know I was speeding", or "I didn't realize I was going that far over the speed limit"? I know people who do loss prevention work for companies and they claim that studies have shown that, on average, when people get caught stealing the amount they actually stole is 3 times more than what they admit to. Could the poachers be telling the truth that only 2 bulls were shot? Yes. However, could they also be lying and have poached more animals than what they are fessing up to? Absolutely. The sketchy part of the whole situation for me is they were informed that the authorities have been notified, but they fled the scene anyways. I'm presuming of course that the poachers were also told by the honest hunters that they had photo evidence, license plate, etc..

One point I would like to add is that the DWR may have reasons for not rewarding a tag for an area not because of the seriousness of the offense reported, but rather the amount of extra tags they can justify for an area. If only a small amount of tags are issued for an area because that's all they can manage for to keep the herd prosperous, then denying a reward tag may have to be a reality. Let's say it's a rough year on the Henry's and they only allotted one bison tag to be drawn. Now, an honest hunter spots a poacher with 2 bison heads in his truck bed and reports it. They convict the poacher, but the honest man doesn't get a bison tag out of the deal because they can't afford to lose more bison than they already have. It was bad enough that they lost 2 bison to poaching, and the herd is just struggling to badly to justify any additional tags. Sure, it's the outcome is disappointing knowing that a reward tag was a possibility, but he should take pride that he reported the crime and there was a conviction. Who knows how many more animals would have been wasted if the crime wasn't reported, and then the possibility is no one would be hunting in that area for a long time.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

If they give a tag to you (little minion they don't give a ratsass about) that's just one more tag they cant ***** away at the next SFW banquet. There's got to be balance! in other words, a big $$$ balance in the general fund.

It's all about the $$$ dude. YOU lose.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

When I was a kid, my grandpa and I ran into some hunters that had killed a big bull in a spike only area. Grandpa reported the hunters and was allowed to take the meat from the illegally killed elk. The DWR kept the horns to put in their poached animal display. I always thought that was a fair settlement. I agree that you should get something for your successful efforts to stop poaching. I don't think an LE tag that's mathematically once in a lifetime these days is a reward that really matches your effort. It's too much to ask, IMO. They ought to let you out of dedicated hunter hours and still hunt the three hunts this year. I think that would be a more fair and proportional response.


----------



## wildlife61 (Dec 8, 2008)

OK here are a few code sections you need to know. I will try to explain them a little later in the post.

Here is the Unlawful Take statute -

23-20-3. Taking, transporting, selling, or purchasing protected wildlife illegal except as authorized -- Penalty.
(1) Except as provided in this title or a rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board, a person may not:
(a) take protected wildlife or its parts;
(b) collect, import, possess, transport, propagate, store, donate, transfer, or export protected wildlife or its parts;
(c) take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, donate, or trade protected wildlife or its parts without having previously procured the necessary licenses, permits, tags, stamps, certificates of registration, authorizations, and receipts required in this title or a rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board;
(d) take protected wildlife with any weapon, ammunition, implement, tool, device, or any part of any of these not specifically authorized in this title or a rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board;
(e) possess while in pursuit of protected wildlife any weapon, ammunition, implement, tool, device, or any part of any of these not specifically authorized in this title or a rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board;
(f) take protected wildlife using any method, means, process, or practice not specifically authorized in this title or a rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board;
(g) take protected wildlife outside the season dates, location boundaries, and daily time frames established in rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board;
(h) take protected wildlife in excess of the bag and possession limits established in rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board;
(i) take protected wildlife in an area closed to hunting, trapping, or fishing by rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board, or by executive order of the division director pursuant to Subsection 23-14-8(4);
(j) practice falconry or capture, possess, or use birds in falconry;
(k) take any wildlife from an airplane or any other airborne vehicle or device or any motorized terrestrial or aquatic vehicle, including snowmobiles and other recreational vehicles;
(l) hold in captivity at any time any live protected wildlife;
(m) use or permit a dog or other domestic or trained animal to take protected wildlife;
 remove, damage, or destroy an occupied nest of protected wildlife;
(o) release captured or captive wildlife into the wild;
(p) use spotlighting to take protected wildlife;
(q) employ or use a means of concealment or camouflage while taking protected wildlife which is prohibited in this title or a rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board;
(r) possess or use bait or other attractant to take protected wildlife which is prohibited in this title or a rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board;
(s) use any decoy or recorded or electronically amplified call which is prohibited in this title or a rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board to take protected wildlife;
(t) commercially harvest protected wildlife, including brine shrimp and brine shrimp eggs;
(u) utilize protected wildlife for commercial purposes or financial gain;
(v) enter, establish, or hold a contest or tournament involving the taking of protected wildlife;

(w) operate or participate in a commercial hunting area as described in Section 23-17-6; or
(x) operate or participate in a cooperative wildlife management unit as defined in Section 23-23-2.
(2) Possession of protected wildlife without a valid license, permit, tag, certificate of registration, bill of sale, or invoice is prima facie evidence that the protected wildlife was illegally taken and is illegally held in possession.
(3) A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if the person:
(a) violates any provision of Subsection (1); and
(b) does so with criminal negligence as defined in Subsection 76-2-103(4). 
Here is the Wanton Destruction Statute -

23-20-4. Wanton destruction of protected wildlife -- Penalties.
(1) A person is guilty of wanton destruction of protected wildlife if that person:
(a) commits an act in violation of Section 23-13-4, 23-13-5, 23-13-13, 23-15-6 through 23-15-9, 23-16-5, or Subsection 23-20-3(1);
(b) captures, injures, or destroys protected wildlife; and
(c) (i) does so with intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct as defined in Section 76-2-103; (ii) intentionally abandons protected wildlife or a carcass;
(iii) commits the offense at night with the use of a weapon;
(iv) is under a court or division revocation of a license, tag, permit, or certificate of registration; or
(v) acts for pecuniary gain.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to actions taken in accordance with:
(a) Title 4, Chapter 14, Utah Pesticide Control Act;
(b) Title 4, Chapter 23, Agricultural and Wildlife Damage Prevention Act; or
(c) Section 23-16-3.1.
(3) Wanton destruction of wildlife is punishable:
(a) as a third degree felony if:
(i) the aggregate value of the protected wildlife determined by the values in Subsection (4) is more than $500; or
(ii) a trophy animal was captured, injured, or destroyed;
(b) as a class A misdemeanor if the aggregate value of the protected wildlife, determined by the values established in Subsection (4) is more than $250, but does not exceed $500; and
(c) as a class B misdemeanor if the aggregate value of the protected wildlife determined by the values established in Subsection (4) is $250 or less.
(4) Regardless of the restitution amounts imposed under Subsection 23-20-4.5(2), the following values are assigned to protected wildlife for the purpose of determining the offense for wanton destruction of wildlife:
(a) $1,000 per animal for:
(i) bison;
(ii) bighorn sheep;
(iii) rocky mountain goat;
(iv) moose;
(v) bear;
(vi) peregrine falcon;
(vii) bald eagle; or
(viii) endangered species;
(b) $750 per animal for:
(i) elk; or
(ii) threatened species;
(c) $500 per animal for:
(i) cougar;
(ii) golden eagle;
(iii) river otter; or
(iv) gila monster;

(d) $400 per animal for:
(i) pronghorn antelope; or
(ii) deer;
(e) $350 per animal for bobcat;
(f) $100 per animal for:
(i) swan;
(ii) sandhill crane;
(iii) turkey;
(iv) pelican;
(v) loon;
(vi) egrets;
(vii) herons;
(viii) raptors, except those that are threatened or endangered;
(ix) Utah milk snake; or
(x) Utah mountain king snake;
(g) $35 per animal for furbearers, except:
(i) bobcat;
(ii) river otter; and
(iii) threatened or endangered species;
(h) $25 per animal for trout, char, salmon, grayling, tiger muskellunge, walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and wiper;
(i) $15 per animal for game birds, except:
(i) turkey;
(ii) swan; and
(iii) sandhill crane;
(j) $10 per animal for game fish not listed in Subsection (4)(h);
(k) $8 per pound dry weight of processed brine shrimp including eggs; and
(l) $5 per animal for protected wildlife not listed.
(5) For purposes of sentencing for a wildlife violation, a person who has been convicted of a third degree felony under Subsection (3)(a) is not subject to the mandatory sentencing requirements prescribed in Subsection 76-3-203.8(4).
(6) As part of a sentence imposed, the court shall impose a sentence of incarceration of not less than 20 consecutive days for a person convicted of a third degree felony under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) who captured, injured, or destroyed a trophy animal for pecuniary gain.
(7) If a person has already been convicted of a third degree felony under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) once, each separate additional offense under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) is punishable by, as part of a sentence imposed, a sentence of incarceration of not less than 20 consecutive days.
(8) The court may not sentence a person subject to Subsection (6) or (7) to less than 20 consecutive days of incarceration or suspend the imposition of the sentence unless the court finds mitigating circumstances justifying lesser punishment and makes that finding a part of the court record.

OK so as far as the statutes go:

You also need to know a few definitions for criminal intent.

76-2-103. Definitions.
A person engages in conduct:
(1) Intentionally, or with intent or willfully with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct, when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(2) Knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or the existing circumstances. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(3) Recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
(4) With criminal negligence or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

So when you look at the definitions and the statutes here is a simple explanation

Unlawful Take = Criminal Negligence, which falls under stupidity sometimes. You need to be punished but not as severe as if you thought out the crime and went out and shot a deer out of season and you knew it was out of season. That is just an example. In the case that this post is about, without knowing all of the facts, I would say if the people who killed the 5 point bull elk just were stupid and did not read the guide book AS THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE they are criminally negligent. Would you like to have a 3rd degree felony on your record and have to pay huge fines and restitution, for a simple mistake???

Wanton Destruction = Intentional, Knowing, or Recklessly. This is where the really bad guys fall most of the time. RECKLESSLY is very rarely used to determine intent, it is usually Intentionally or Knowingly that is used to determine Wanton Destruction. 
The guy who goes into the limited entry unit knowing that he is going to kill a trophy bull elk and try to get away with it falls under the knowingly or intentionally. These are the guys that need the increased fines and penalties under the law!

The tags are there to reward the people who:

A-	Take a substantial risk to turn in a bad guy who kills something knowingly or intentionally
B-	Provide key information that leads to the conviction of WANTON DESTRUCTION

Before you guys start to cast stones, think about how you would want things handled if you were in the similar situation as these folks. Would you want the Division Officers to complete a thorough investigation and take all of the facts and circumstances in to consideration before recommending a person for prosecution? OR do you want the officers to start being so heavy handed you and I as the sportsman will be so afraid of doing anything you don't want to hunt anymore?

Sorry for the lengthy post and the law definitions, but I wanted to shed some light on some of the things that were not mentioned and maybe not made clear to people.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Great post.

While a tag would be great, our society suffers from entitlementitis (sp?  ) where very few of us want the smallest of our actions to go unnoticed. Thanks for doing your part as a good citizen and sportsperson for the simple fact that it contributes to the perpetuation of a pastime we love, instead of detracting from and bastardizing it as the unconscious and 'wanton' do.

Again, thank you.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Give the guy a tag, and his friends. They did the right thing. Even if this was in season, out of season. It was poaching. Trying to justify stupidity over right and wrong is wrong in itself. If it was out of season and they hunted these animals for the meat, it does not matter if they were trophy animals, cows, calfs, or spikes. It would still be poaching. They broke the law. The end! The result of their being caught was these hunters doing the right thing. They should be rewarded. -O,-


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

As with the majority of the Proclamation it is completely unclear what they mean. It would be way to easy to make it plain and simple. I feel it is somewhat misleading; but saying that, we don't always need to be rewarded for good deeds, you will be rewarded by the hunting gods.  

Good job on doing the right thing.  I would also hope that if a similar situation came up again, you would do the same even if you don't get a tag, since it is the right thing to do. 

I have found that even people I thought understood and studied the proclamation don't always keep up with the newest regs. Many people 'assume' that nothing has changed from the previous years; which with this year couldn't be farther from the truth. To top it off the Proclamation reads more like a law document rather than in simple terms.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

It's funny, but I keep saying people need a lawyer to completely understand the proclamation. :lol: :wink: This subject brings up a perfect example.


----------



## MEEN (Jan 27, 2009)

It seems like a lot of butt hurt for someone that didn't know you could receive a tag for reporting poaching until after a buddy pointed it out several days after the event. If you were fine with nothing before you knew about the reward, you should be fine with nothing after. I think any law abiding outdoorsman would have reported these poachers whether they got a reward or not because it's unfair. 

However, I personally think you should get a tag. Odds that all 3 people in one hunting group didn't know they were illegally shooting mature elk in a limited entry area are pretty slim. 

I think there is a crucial reason for the DNR to reward someone with a tag. I think it's to try and sway someone that knows about a poacher but wouldn't report them otherwise because it's a close friend or family member. If the DNR wants these people to turn in their buddies for poaching, those buddies have to know it's worth the backlash from their friends/family. If the DNR wants to promote this kind of reporting than they need to reward people like you with tags. If I am a guy sitting on the fence as to whether or not I should report my good friend for poaching because I will get a tag and I come across your experience, I am not going to report him. Some people are going to need to know they will get compensated for ruining a relationship with a friend or family member. NOTE: I would report a family member/friend even if I didn't receive anything. Poaching makes me sick.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

You guys did the right thing! a freind of mine actually caught 2 guys who had just killed a trophy buck out on the Kennocott property. watch them shoot it . field dress it . hide it in some oak brush , walked off the mountain, with plans to retreive it after dark. My freind drove around to the west side of the mountain found their truck, parked and watched as they left. reported plate number , yr make of truck and color. That was a year and a half ago. Still trying to get a tag, going through the same beaurcratic crap you are. ,, I wish you guys luck..


----------



## hunter_orange13 (Oct 11, 2008)

wow, kinda sounds hard... but idk what they should do. we are hurting for elk tags now really, but 1 won't really make a difference. 

but the important thing is, u save all of our buts out there. its ppl like them that don't read the proc that gives hunting a bad name! we need more ppl out there like u guys!


----------



## cache19 (Jun 17, 2009)

*Hunting with Weatherbyman*

I was hunting with weatherbyman when all of this happened, just for the record we would not hesitate to report a poaching violation in the future even if there was no reward for doing so. It's not about the reward, but rather protecting the resources we all love and work hard to protect. The frustrating and underlying issue is that the DWR has been extremely difficult to work with. I don't feel that I'm necessarily 'entitled' to a tag (although I do think in situations like ours it should be considered) My major issue is with DWR not returning my emails and phone calls especially in light of the situation. A lot of these postings have provided us with more information then the DWR made available to us.

Let me tell you, it was extremely frustrating seeing that five point beauty in the back of the poachers truck, knowing that a trophy six point bull had been wounded, and having the elk herd disrupted in that area during our hunt. It wasn't a good day for hunters in Utah..

MEEN - we knew about the tag for reporting the poachers, just not the specifics on how the DWR rewarded them. Like stated in the original post, we didn't want the monetary compensation as we felt it would be better served developing Utah's wildlife populations.

Ignorance or not, poaching is poaching.


----------



## Texscala (Sep 8, 2007)

Congrats on doing the right thing. It would be nice if you could get a tag but at least you helped stop a poacher.

A few years ago I had done a ton of research on an area and had a nice 4x5 buck I planed on taking. In the morning I figured he would be one of 2 places, as I got up high the deer was not where I expected but I spoted a buck a 1500 yards below and took off for him. Another party spoted the deer and shot 27 times at him. We watched a few guys go up and start working on the animal and eventually they started to drag him out. They never finished the job and headed back to their truck without the deer. 

I kept hunting several draws but kept looking for the other guys to come back to their kill. 6 or so hours later they came back and hiked back out to it and worked on it again and then took off without it once more.

As the day started coming to a close I decided to hike out to the area they were visiting and see what was going on. After hiking a mile or so and using my buddy over the walkie talkie to guide me I found the animal. It was the same 4x5 I had pics of in my trail cams and he had been shot 7 times. Once through the ear, a shot in the rear, and lots of leg shots, his neck had what I imagined to be the fatal wound. 

The animal was not properly cleaned and it was a pretty hot day and I imagined the meat would not last much longer. I called the DWR and an officer came out and met me. I explained the situation and my concern for the meat. I expressed intrest in personally taking the meat if I would be allowed. He thought that would be a great idea and to my suprise told me to keep the antlers too. 

He wanted as much info as I could give him on the party that had taken the deer and told me if they came back to call him instantly and not start any confrontation. We went to the animal dragged it back to camp and cleaned it up, skinned it, and headed home. I felt that I was able to salvage meat that would have been lost and even thoug I did not personally shoot the deer I still enjoy looking at the rack and remembering the outing. I also think it is cool to have a pic of the buck alive and the rack. 


You did the right thing and like was stated before Karma will take care of you, just keep doing the right thing.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Congratulations and thank you for doing the right thing.

In my opinion you should have received a tag.

An I think it was honorable telling them that they could use the money to futher game mangagement.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

When I think of poaching I think of someone deliberately taking animals illegally and trying to get away with it. IE: Vernon! However...if you want to use the word loosely then yes this situation could be described as poaching. I believe it was the responsibility of the hunters to know the boundaries in which they are hunting. However I do belive that accidents can be made. We've already established the fact that one needs to be, or hire, an attorney to understand the loosely defined and sometimes vague proclamation of rules that we as hunters should follow. I do think that accidents and mistakes are made in determining hunting areas and maybe that was the situation in this case (that is not for you nor I to decide).

The issue of giving a tag has varying levels. I believe that the DWR's purpose in offering a tag is for turning in such a-wipes as the "poachers" that poached the Vernon unit. That was poaching! However, there are different levels of "poaching"....maybe 1st degree poaching, 2nd degree poaching, 3rd degree poaching and ungulate-slaughter! Penalties follow severity of crime and maybe rewards should as well. I do think that you are right that the DWR should maybe explain their resoning and why they have choosen to not give you a tag...even though you so absolutely believe you should get one.

After all is said and done, however, I believe that all this belly achin and moaning about what you think is so rightfully yours is all in vain. You did the right thing....you should be happy about that and about knowing that those "poachers" will not be hunting YOUR area again and will not be poaching YOUR 5 point and 6 point beauties! *NOBODY should ever owe you anything for doing the right thing. In fact, from my point of view, you owe it to yourself and to every other sportsman and hunter to ALWAYS do the right thing.*

Once again....this is just my opinion....take it for what it's worth.


----------



## HJB (May 22, 2008)

I think you should have got the tag, but it's up to the DWR to decide. Think about how many elk those idiots would have taken in the future? The DWR did offer you the reward money, and you should have taken that and also asked for the antlers of the dead bull. $1000 to go toward a pair of Swaroskis doesn't sound too bad to me, think about how many elk you can find with a pair of those babies :lol: 
The DWR officers can tell if guys are Poachers or just idiots, and these guys must have just been idiots. Trust me, there is a big difference and it shows. 
What unit was this on? (Nobody will locate your secret spot by telling us the name of the unit)


----------



## WHutchings (Jan 6, 2009)

Well said HJB, poachers are after the head gear not the meat in most cases, just too unforunate we have violaters like that.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Ask that instead of a tag, you'd each like 2 bonus points added to your total for future draws. Costs them nothing and helps you. Just a thought.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

HJB said:


> I think you should have got the tag, but it's up to the DWR to decide. Think about how many elk those idiots would have taken in the future? The DWR did offer you the reward money, and you should have taken that and also asked for the antlers of the dead bull. $1000 to go toward a pair of Swaroskis doesn't sound too bad to me, think about how many elk you can find with a pair of those babies :lol:
> The DWR officers can tell if guys are Poachers or just idiots, and these guys must have just been idiots. Trust me, there is a big difference and it shows.
> What unit was this on? (Nobody will locate your secret spot by telling us the name of the unit)


Agreed! I had a similar incident last year and i DID take the money. I took a chance reporting it(more than you know) and the reward money i got, paid for all of my hunting and fishing licenses and tags in UT my entire life(or close to it). I think this kid should get a tag. Stupidity on the poachers part or not. It is our responsability to understand the procs. Who knows how many other big bulls these idiots killed. 
I am going to send this post to a good friend and see what he thinks of it. HE is pretty high up in the DWR enforcement area. :wink:


----------



## MEEN (Jan 27, 2009)

> MEEN - we knew about the tag for reporting the poachers, just not the specifics on how the DWR rewarded them. Like stated in the original post, we didn't want the monetary compensation as we felt it would be better served developing Utah's wildlife populations.


Sorry, I didn't understand your original post.

Like I said, IMO you should get the tag. If the DNR wants to try and convince friends/family of poachers to turn them in they need to award tags when people are convicted. They knew they were doing something illegal. Otherwise they would have stayed. I understand that legally the DNR does not have to award you a tag because of the word "MAY" and "wanton", but come on. I think the extra bonus points would be fair atleast.


----------



## HJB (May 22, 2008)

I going to throw this out there and say that you were hunting the South Cache unit and you were probably down Curtis Creek somewhere. Am I right???
Many people get confused about the hunting regs up on Monte. One side of the road you can hunt "Any Bull" and the other side is "LE". They should have done the research and figured that out. You would be surprized how many people shoot bulls down there with no LE tag. It's easy for poachers to shoot a bull down there and simply drive accross the road and say they shot it on Dairy ridge or something. It's a poachers paradise, sad but true.
I wouldn't be surprized if that fish cop had already given away a bunch of reward permits for South Cache and just decided that to many elk were being killed outside the regular quota. You never know, and you probably never WILL know.


----------



## jungle (May 10, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Ask that instead of a tag, you'd each like 2 bonus points added to your total for future draws. Costs them nothing and helps you. Just a thought.


Have a choice of bonus points in lieu of cash reward for anyprosecution of any reported incident. I think someone ought to propose this at the next RAC meetings.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Heck, you could even have a schedule of bonus points depending on trophy status or severity of the crime, for example:

antlerless crime = 1 antlerless bp

bear/mt lion crime = 2 bear/lion bp

non-trophy, general season crime = 2 bp/preference points

LE, CWMU Antelope, ELK or Deer crime = 3 bp

Moose, buff, goat, sheep = 4 bp

and so on.....

Garyfish, once again, you nailed it!


----------



## markjon1 (Jun 16, 2009)

I appreciate the posts. I am the one that was hunting in my "secret spot" that day. My friend went to a lot of effort posting our story and portions of my correspondence with the DWR. Thank you.

Let me clarify a few points. The intent on posting this discussion was not to get a tag, but rather to discuss the issue with our fellow hunters. I, and I assume both of my friends with me that day, have no sense of "entitlement." We are responsible hunters who did not hesitate to report this "poaching" incident. Our reporting of the poaching incident was not based on recieving a reward. In fact we spent most of our rather rare day off documenting and reporting the incident, instead of hunting. We forwarded pictures and detailed accounts of the incident to the DWR. Our efforts ultimately led to a conviction (yes for poaching). For that alone I am satisfied. If you review the first post, I declined any type of monetary reward and finished my email by thanking the DWR officer for his work. The main point of this discussion is that the proclamation, especially the poaching regulations, are poorly written and should be revised. I think a little clarity would go a long way towards clearing up any confusion.

As to the issue of ignorance. I assure you that this area is hard to find and is bordered on all sides by private land. I sincerely doubt whether these hunters entered into this area in ingorance. There isn't an open bull unit within 60 miles of this area. Thier story that they had no idea that this was a spike only area together with the fact that they left the scene indicate to me that they were not ignorant. They may have been negligent but given the distance from any open bull unit I think that negligence rises to the point of being gross negligence. I think you are splitting hairs to distinguish between gross negligence and wanton. Anyone who tells you that wanton is a clearly defined term is lying to you to try to win an argument.

One final point. I am certain that the 6 point was killed. They shot him at about 60 yards. My three year old nephew could have followed that blood trail. He ran up hill and dropped off in a canyon. The DWR officer simply did not have the time to pursue this animal.

Thanks again to everyone for the discussion. I appreciate your perspectives.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

markjon1 said:


> I appreciate the posts. I am the one that was hunting in my "secret spot" that day. My friend went to a lot of effort posting our story and portions of my correspondence with the DWR. Thank you.
> 
> Let me clarify a few points. The intent on posting this discussion was not to get a tag, but rather to discuss the issue with our fellow hunters. I, and I assume both of my friends with me that day, have no sense of "entitlement." We are responsible hunters who did not hesitate to report this "poaching" incident. Our reporting of the poaching incident was not based on recieving a reward. In fact we spent most of our rather rare day off documenting and reporting the incident, instead of hunting. We forwarded pictures and detailed accounts of the incident to the DWR. Our efforts ultimately led to a conviction (yes for poaching). For that alone I am satisfied. If you review the first post, I declined any type of monetary reward and finished my email by thanking the DWR officer for his work. The main point of this discussion is that the proclamation, especially the poaching regulations, are poorly written and should be revised. I think a little clarity would go a long way towards clearing up any confusion.
> 
> ...


Glad you decided to join and I glad you did the right thing. We need many more people like you and your friends out there with their watchful eyes.


----------



## weatherby_man (Feb 5, 2008)

We really appreciate all of the posts and responses to this thread. More than anything, we just wanted to throw it out there and see what everyone thought about the situation. I can see how it might have come across that we feel "entitled" to a tag and that we are complaining, belly aching, and moaning (or butt hurt). In reality, we did do the right thing for the right reason. We are glad we turned them in and like we have mentioned I am sure none of us would hesitate to do it again. We are satisfied that we were able to help. I agree that too many times people feel like the world owes them everything... I can assure you we are not that way. I have obviously been playing the "devil's advocate" to be able to weigh out and debate both sides of the issue, which I feel have been addressed well in this thread. Many great points have been made in this thread and I can see and understand all the different sides and perspectives. It all comes down to perspective and perception from each person, made up of their own past experiences and background. What needs to happen is for the DWR to close the loop holes and address and clarify their position in certain areas. I feel that is what this is all about, and in the end, what we would like to see happen so this kind of a thing doesn't happen to someone else. For us, I feel the underlying issue is the vagueness of their wording and the fact that they gave us the run around. They would never talk or discuss with us their reasoning. They were never open with us other than saying this case didn't fit the parameters for a tag. I can honestly say I think it can be justified either way and that is what's frustrating especially when there is no dialogue from the DWR (we don't "absolutely feel or believe we certainly deserve" the tag, just want to have some open dialogue with the DWR). I also find it interesting that the DWR throws tags around to special interest groups or in other ways that they deem "necessary", but won't use them in cases like this that would strengthen and promote them. If the DWR can't give out a tag because the area is hurting or doesn't have many elk, that's fine, but they need to communicate that. That is our point, is they won't communicate their justification or reasoning.

I agree that there should be varying degrees of poaching and don't think people should be prosecuted to the highest degree of poaching for a "simple mistake". I think the hard part with this case is we just don't know if the hunters were lying or not. I also find it hard to believe that ALL of them thought it was an any bull area and that none of them knew otherwise. I agree with the post that most people don't tell the WHOLE truth, especially when they get busted. Even if it truly was ignorance and they honestly didn't know it was spike only, who knows if they told the WHOLE truth. What if they had shot another bull there the week before and got away with it? Or if they have been hunting big bulls in there for years? We have accepted the outcome of the case for what it is... that it was an honest mistake. However, that doesn't change the fact that one mature bull elk was illegally killed (you can call that poaching or not, however you want to look at it), another was wounded (yes it could still be alive today Hogan, but also could be dead, who knows), and we stopped those hunters from going back in there with more friends and family in following years and killing more mature bulls illegally. I also feel that the DWR should set up some kind of a system to reward people in accordance to the level or degree of poaching they turned in. Whether it is a monetary($$$) reward for a certain level, bonus points awarded for that species for another level (GaryFish we loved that idea by the way), and a tag for another level (maybe the highest degree of 'wanton destruction').

It's all about expectations and as we all can see from this thread everyone comes with different expectations. The DWR's role is to manage those expectations with clarity and purpose, not with words that they can twist anything their way. I think it shows they are twisting it their way by the mere fact that they won't talk or discuss with us their reasoning. If they had a good reason, they would be able to make their point and move on, but they can't/won't.

Its apparent that the majority of you believe that we should get a tag. 


> I am going to send this post to a good friend and see what he thinks of it. HE is pretty high up in the DWR enforcement area.


LunkerHunter2 thanks for forwarding this on to someone you know in the DWR. We appreciate any help we could receive and please let us know what his thoughts or feelings are.

HJB-- fyi we were not in the South Cache unit and we are not disclosing which unit we were on.



> An I think it was honorable telling them that they could use the money to further game mangagement.


Thanks bowgy! We really feel that the DWR's cash resources should be used to furthur habitat and animal conservation. That is another reason we feel GaryFish's idea of awarding bonus points is such a good one. We feel that rewards should be given that won't hinder the DWR's resources.

Last, but not least, the only reason I used the title "Is DWR screwin us???" was to get everyone's attention on the forum so they would read the post and give us feedback. I didn't use it because we are bitter or angry. We just want communication and to help better our system here in Utah.

Thanks again for all your posts and please keep them coming! If anyone else knows anyone we can talk with or anything else we can do please let us know.


----------



## deadicatedweim (Dec 18, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Ok here's some food for thought, #1 How do you know they killed 2 "trophy elk? From what I have read they killed one and wounded another. Bull elk are very hearty and the bull could very well be alive today. #2 Look up the poaching out in Vernon, that is when you WILL get a tag with no questions asked. * Every year on just about every unit, someone shoots a branch antlered bull on accident. * If they had to give a tag to everyone of those cases there really would not leave anything to the draw. These knuckheads were hunting mature elk during a hunting season, packing out the meat, doing everything by the book. I am certain the DNR must take a tag out of the pool to give to you, so in order to do that the fines from their actions would have to cover the cost of the tag, court, their time etc. It does not sound like these guys will get the book thrown at them, which it shouldn't. The Vernon case is text book for "wanton", "poaching". etc. etc. They were also hunting when no season was taking place. Cutting off the heads and leaving the body to rot.
> Poaching is also keeping a fish that is the wrong size up to Strawberry, but should they reward someone that has turned in a "poacher" with a fishing tag the next year? the DNR would be out of business. Good job and sorry, that is just my point of view.


A 5 and 6 point is a big difference then a branched bull. And imho anyone that cant see good enough to notice the branch shouldnt be out there hunting. I ran into a Idiot 2 years ago that shot a 5 point bull thinking he had just killed a 5 point buck. Scares me thinking what I might look like in his scope. Also whats the point of the proc if people dont read it. They have some pretty good boundry discriptions. Most ethecial hunters would pass up a shot if they were in doubt. If these kids just wanted to get meat why didnt they shoot a smaller bull they were after a trophy bull. The guy from the hunting party who turned them in was even positive he could have killed a spike that day. *Give them a tag for the next year so they can work it in with the total amount of tags availabel*.


----------



## deadicatedweim (Dec 18, 2007)

Double post


----------



## muley_crazy (Sep 7, 2007)

IMO you deserve a tag. Just my .02 :wink:


----------



## Dekashika (Oct 23, 2007)

I agree that you deserve a tag. Having said that, the DWR did word it in a way that gives them and out, should they decide NOT to give you one, as others pointed out. 

I guess you will have to just feel good about helping a hunter avoid future mistakes, and maybe saving a few bulls in the area.


----------



## cornerfinder (Dec 4, 2008)

I think you deserve a tag. Good job.


----------

