# Rivers closed till second week of july



## Baron83 (May 24, 2016)

Anyone know the reason behind this? I've always been curious but can't really find any information about it.


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

It’s to protect spawning fish. Not all rivers are closed just the ones specified in the guide book.


----------



## Baron83 (May 24, 2016)

Got ya thank you!


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

It has always amazed me how so many people refuse to read any kind of proclamations put out by the state agency and just assume the laws without researching them first.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

A lot of them might also be closed due to high runoff for safety concerns.

I also agree that everyone needs to read the guide books and become familiar with what the rules are 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Baron83 (May 24, 2016)

Ohh I've read them I didn't see anything about why they were closed.my apologies


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

These are generally sensitive cutthroat spawning waters that have that specific restriction.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Baron83 said:


> Ohh I've read them I didn't see anything about why they were closed.my apologies


If you had read them, you'd know which rivers were closed and what sections were closed. I don't fish and I knew that. I believe in there somewhere they did say the reason for closing them. Usually when something weird is put in place, they take a little section and explain to people why that is.


----------



## Baron83 (May 24, 2016)

You must be a bundle of joy in person. I knew it was closed I asked why they closed them. Nothing in proc says why.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

sheepassassin said:


> It has always amazed me how so many people refuse to read any kind of proclamations put out by the state agency and just assume the laws without researching them first.


Didn't you get busted for poaching or something like that in the past? Maybe I'm wrong and if so my bad, but I have a hard time keeping up with past user names and girlfriends user names and the such...gets confusing.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

gdog said:


> Didn't you get busted for poaching or something like that in the past? Maybe I'm wrong and if so my bad, but I have a hard time keeping up with past user names and girlfriends user names and the such...gets confusing.


I've never poached anything


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

sheepassassin said:


> Baron83 said:
> 
> 
> > Ohh I've read them I didn't see anything about why they were closed.my apologies
> ...


The person is actually doing the right thing and asking the community a clarifying question; that is a valid way of learning.

It seems you are not only randomly picking on him but also doing so in an ill-informed manner. He clearly read the proposition and knew certain waters are closed until the 2nd week of July. I even went back through the proclamation and couldn't find an explanation. Could have missed it myself though.

Maybe actually take the time to help educate a fellow fisherman next time instead of chastising them for taking the time to learn from their peers.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

sheepassassin said:


> I've never poached anything


Can you define "poached" for us?


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> Can you define "poached" for us?


Killing protected wildlife out of season, without a permit, before or after legal shooting hours, not within the correct hunting area, trespassing on lands without the proper permissions (if posted correctly in Utah), with the use of a spotlight...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

What about killing protected wildlife in any illegal manner? Like, maybe just for sake of discussion, by using an illegal weapon? Just as an example... 

I know poaching isn’t really legally defined, but I think most reasonable people would consider any violation of 23-20-4 as “poaching” in one way or another. 

I also agree with others about your responses. It’s possible to respond to genuine questions by not being a total jerk, even for you. It doesn’t happen often, but you’ve shown you can do it a time or two. But if you insist on being a jerk to people just asking harmless questions, you kind of open yourself up to whatever criticism comes. 

We can go to counseling next week, I guess.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

That’s debatable that would be like any time someone gets pulled over for going 5 over the posted speed limit, that in addition to a speeding ticket, they also get charged with attempted vehicular manslaughter. Poaching is a convenient catch all term up for interpretation by anyone using it, but to actually be guilty of poaching, I think for most people it would have to be a pretty severe crime to be actually defined as such.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

No, actually it wouldn’t be like that at all. It would be like anyone pulled over for, cited, and found guilty of going 5 over being told they violated the traffic code by speeding. 

It’s not a stretch at all to suggest a violation of “Wanton Destruction of Protected Wildlife” as a poaching violation. We could start a poll here to see if I really thought there would be any question, but I don’t. 

Just be decent to people. You can still disagree with folks, you can still rib people and have a good time. Just be decent. It isn’t asking that much. If you read a question by someone and all your inner intuition is telling you to respond like a jerk and belittle the person, just pull a Costanza and do the opposite. Try it. See how it makes you feel.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

no, it is like that. killing someone with a car because of your actions is about as bad as it gets when it comes to driving, just like killing an animal illegally is about as bad as it get while hunting. just because someone broke a law while hunting, doesn't mean their intent to violate the law was so bad, that calling it poaching is the appropriate term for what took place. for it to be a poaching incident, i think a person has to have intent to commit the crime. just like when you speed while driving, doesn't give anyone grounds to assume your intent was to achieve the worst possible outcome from your actions.


its funny that 7 years after the fact, I have yet to see anyone give an accurate account of what really took place. want to know why? because i was the only one there. the officers didn't even know what happened, they just went with their assumptions. their evidence for the accusations was lacking in a major way as well. I have heard so many different rumors and versions of the story, its comical to say the least. you don't even know what the charge I was convicted of, really was for! that's ok, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. remember, it is a mandatory state law that the dwr doesn't release guns, weapons or vehicles used in the crime, back to the convicted offender, after they have been through the courts and found guilty of the crimes they were accused of. I got everything back... what does that say? I also didn't lose big or small game hunting rights. I have seen all hunting rights take away from guys who failed to have a valid duck stamp. hmmmm…? and no, no one was bought off. i have heard that explanation several times too. i paid the minimum amount required for fines and restitution, and not a penny more. it was a stupid mistake, but not nearly as serious as everyone assumed it to be.


funny you think its your place to tell me how to treat people on line when ive seen you be sarcastic and rude to people over the same kinda stuff. I cant recall any off hand that I have seen recently, haven't been on very much lately. but i'll be sure to point them out in the future.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Sometimes the DWR personnel will watch and wait until an animal is actually killed before they arrest. They claim to have a deep concern for the wildlife, yet, they will stake out an area, hide, and wait until the fish or the animal is killed before stopping the perpetrators. If they really had concern for the fish and game animals wouldn't they stop them before they commit the act? 

Do regular police do a stake out and wait until the murder happens before an arrest or do they stop the suspects if possible before the murder?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

HighNDry said:


> Sometimes the DWR personnel will watch and wait until an animal is actually killed before they arrest. They claim to have a deep concern for the wildlife, yet, they will stake out an area, hide, and wait until the fish or the animal is killed before stopping the perpetrators. If they really had concern for the fish and game animals wouldn't they stop them before they commit the act?
> 
> Do regular police do a stake out and wait until the murder happens before an arrest or do they stop the suspects if possible before the murder?


Without proof of intent, yes they wait until it happens.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title23/Chapter20/23-20-S4.html?v=C23-20-S4_1800010118000101

Proving this crime requires that one captures inured, or destroys protected wildlife in an illegal manner. It's kind of tough to prove this case if there was no protected wildlife injured, captured, or killed.

There is alway "attempted" wanton destruction, but to prove an attempt you have to be able to prove intent to commit the act, and they have done an act that is a substantial step towards committing the crime. It's not an easy thing to do.

Unfortunately, what is described as letting an animal die before arresting is what is required by law.


----------

