# Turn in a poacher. get a tag? Not Really



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Get Gepart Monday Nite 5/10/16 Poacher caught Redhanded shooting 6x6 Bull .Out of State Hunter with a Cow >> Spike Bull Tag. Takes 3 shots at a Trophy Bull. Kills it, walks over to the Bull . Takes his hunting coat off. now in Camo and heads for the trees. Only problem someone sees the shooter with a spotting scope kill the bull. Turns him in, spends entire opining day helping the DWR nail this guy. Then after 6 months he gets a Bull tag for the unit? NOPE.DWR offers him some cash. Guy did what we as hunters are ask to do.Is 
it more important to put out Trophy Elk tags to Special Interest Groups Than a life time resident of the State. Whatcha you people at the DWR Thinkin?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

How much money did he get?


-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

What ever happened to the times when someone would do something just because it was right and not because of what they might get in the end?


----------



## Blackie6 (Jul 7, 2014)

My buddy had the same thing happen. He got around 500$, but the process he had to go through to get that was a nightmare he said


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Have you ever made a call to the poaching hotline? I have twice and both times I was treated like the criminal. They spent more time questioning who I was then what I saw. Never again! I'm not wasting my hunting time to try and help out. I didn't expect anything out of it other than someone to show up and write a ticket.


----------



## highcountryfever (Aug 24, 2009)

Here is the link to the article:

http://kutv.com/news/get-gephardt/w...nting-permit-as-reward-for-turning-in-poacher

Mixed feelings on this one. It does suck that there were not federal charges filed, but as the law states there must be federal charges to issue the tag.

On the other hand, the possibility of getting a tag should not be the only reason that poachers are turned in. I would be mad too in the situation, but I would like to think that I would be more upset that the guy got off too easy, rather than me not getting the tag. The tag should be a bonus, and doing the right thing is the real reward. Easy to say from the sidelines I guess


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The times that I have called in a questionable act that I have saw the officer that called me was very professional and while he did ask a lot of questions I never felt that he was treating me wrong. 

I did one time find a stolen car that someone had pushed off of the road towards a ledge where they asked me to come down to the police office to take my finger prints. The reason for this was that I had gone over to the car and checked inside of it to make sure that there was no one inside of it. They did this to eliminate my prints on the car.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Whistleblower? Come on. As for just being a good Guy. Come On again. He didn't write the law thats in the Proc.Will send you some CASH. He didn't want the cash..He wanted what the laws say he's to be awarded.This guy has been run around by the DWR since day 3 after the knuckle head was arrested.. The officer who retrieved the Bull. told this guy you will get at tag. So take the Money and run..Take the law off the Books. We all know what the right thing is to do,. But fine the guy a Grand and cut him loose..Just ain't right. I know a guy who was ticketed in Wyoming for a Trophy over 30 inch Buck
that had the crap shot out of him . when the Buck was harvested/ Not a lota meat. He salvaged what he could..packed out on his horse to camp. Next day Fish Police gave him the ticket for wanton destruction of Wildlife. Took the Head and the little bit of meat there was. His Gun. So he lost the head, had to buy his gun back from the State of Wyoming.He was in a bunch more than a Grand. Something STINKS with Utah Wildlife Laws . I support the field officers 1000 per cent/ But the Head Cheeses need an overhaul.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> What ever happened to the times when someone would do something just because it was right and not because of what they might get in the end?


The get Gephard story bugged me for this very reason. The guy kept saying "I spent half my day trying to help the DWR...". But why? The ONLY reason he did so was because he wanted a tag! He also said he would never work with the DWR again!

This story was sad, and a black eye for sportsmen all the way around.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Old Fudd said:


> Something STINKS with Utah Wildlife Laws . ... the Head Cheeses need an overhaul.


Head Cheeses? Of the DWR?

Remember who writes the laws: State Legislature.

It's YOUR voting that makes these laws.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

The original offence was a felony worthy offence. The individual was convicted of a crime related to the offence. The DA or Officer plea bargaining down to a lesser offence should not enter into the picture.

Not sure an opening day hunt is worth getting involved for a misdemeanor offence.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

I'd call either way. But if part of the call was for a LE tag, like the system
Says I'd expect the tag. 

I have called a few times. I did have a decent relationship with DWR enforcement. 
I would usually get the cell number of the officer assigned to the area and call them
Directly. Once was for a supposed layout tender boat that was rallying birds, that 
BS was stopped within 20 minutes, the other was a dude shooting in the rest pond. 
Again stopped immediately. 

I've also been on the other side with an inexperienced officer that didn't 
Want to do anything other than excerpt his "authority"


----------



## justismi28 (Aug 19, 2014)

Its sad that this became a news story...

Friggin entitlement is taking this world down the toilet bowl. This guy is upset cause he didn't get what he wanted so he has this massive pity party and calls this Gephardt feller to make a huge fuss? What a waste of space. Plus...he just reported it, didn't the guilty party come forth in the end and fess up?

I like incentives for turning in wrong doers...but its a privilege to receive these bonuses, and jackwagons like this guy complaining are what get those privileges taken away. If you aren't grateful for $500 in a half day...then ya'll must make a lot more money than I.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> The original offence was a felony worthy offence. The individual was convicted of a crime related to the offence. The DA or Officer plea bargaining down to a lesser offence should not enter into the picture.


This is where the problem lies here. The perpetrator just got a slap on the wrist instead of a felony. It isn't the fault of the legislature, the law, DWR leadership, or the DWR's idea behind the program. It *IS *the fault of whomever was prosecuting the case, be it the county prosecutor and/or the DWR enforcement arm that decided to drop the charges down to a misdemeanor.

Unfortunately, this is all too common in poaching cases and is why poachers often seem to repeat their offenses.

The perp wasn't a Hatch was it?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Nothing to do with entitlement.

Taken from the DWR's website:
_Reward permits
The Division sometimes offers reward permits when poached animals are once-in-a-lifetime species or big game animals on limited-entry areas. To receive one of these permits, you must be eligible to receive the permit, and you must provide information that leads to a poacher's arrest and successful prosecution for wanton destruction of wildlife. For more information on this opportunity, see Utah Admin. Rule R657-5-23._

Regardless of how you or I feel about his reasons, he did follow what is published.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

we talked to a young guy last year on the bow hunt. he was scouting for elk. he had turn a guy in for poaching and he said you have to stay on top of it and bug the hell out of them to get anything and he got a elk tag.


----------



## justismi28 (Aug 19, 2014)

I guess I just don't understand why people need validation for doing the right thing. 

I understand you saying the dwr did not follow the law, but the only law broken that was recorded was unlawful taking. Therefore, by your posting he doesn't qualify for the tag. They cut the guy a break...whether we agree with that decision or not it doesn't matter. End of the day, the guy reported a misdemeanor and was rewarded $500. 

Now explain to me how it has nothing to do with entitlement? He received fair and lawful compensation for his actions. Why does he deserve more?


----------



## Buckfinder (May 23, 2009)

This is a case of expectations. If I was expecting an LE Elk tag (which in many cases is now almost once in a life time) and I didn't receive it, I would be pretty upset. I think the DWR needs to lower expectations and not advertise that if you turn in a poacher you will receive a tag. (if you read the fine print it says you can (not will) be issued a tag.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Huntoholic said:


> Nothing to do with entitlement.
> 
> Taken from the DWR's website:
> _Reward permits
> ...


Except it's not a cut and dry "you help out you get a permit" issue. A lot of whether or not you get a permit is in the hands of other people. The law states the poacher must be charged and convicted of Wanton Destruction of wildlife. If the prosecution is unsuccessful, no permit. If the charges are dropped or as in this case, downgraded, no permit.

Further, even if the prosecution is successful for the correct charge there are still circumstances that could keep you from getting a permit. That's why they point you to _Rule R657-5-23 (it's actually R657-5-22) for more information.

Bottom line, if the only reason you're calling the DWR is for a reward permit, be prepared to be disappointed, cause there's a lot of cogs that have to fall to get you that reward. Best idea is to call because it's the right thing to do, and count any reward permit, money, or otherwise as icing on the cake.

For those interested, here's the actual law:

_


> *R657-5-22. Poaching-Reported Reward Permits.*
> 
> (1) For purposes of this section, "successful prosecution" means the screening, filing of charges and subsequent adjudication of guilt for the poaching incident.
> (2) Any person who provides information leading to another person's successful prosecution under Section 23-20-4 for wanton destruction of a bull moose, desert bighorn ram, rocky mountain bighorn ram, rocky mountain goat, bison, bull elk, buck deer or buck pronghorn within any once-in-a-lifetime or limited entry area may receive a permit from the division to hunt the same species on the same once-in-a-lifetime or limited entry area where the violation occurred, except as provided in Subsection (3).
> ...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I would be glad to turn him in with or without a tag for a reward. Don't like the laws? Vote out your representatives that think they are untouchable.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Here is the section from the books. You decide if he met the requirements. Maybe under "section 23-20-4" it has some other words but I would think the guy should get the permit. Just my opinion.

_R657-5-22. Poaching-Reported Reward Permits.

(1) For purposes of this section, "successful prosecution" means the screening, filing of charges and subsequent adjudication of guilt for the poaching incident.

(2) Any person who provides information leading to another person's successful prosecution under Section 23-20-4 for wanton destruction of a bull moose, desert bighorn ram, rocky mountain bighorn ram, rocky mountain goat, bison, bull elk, buck deer or buck pronghorn within any once-in-a-lifetime or limited entry area may receive a permit from the division to hunt the same species on the same once-in-a-lifetime or limited entry area where the violation occurred, except as provided in Subsection (3).

(3)(a) In the event that issuance of a poaching-reported reward permit would exceed 5% of the total number of limited entry or once-in-a-lifetime permits issued in the following year for the respective area, a permit shall not be issued for that respective area. As an alternative, the division may issue a permit as outlined in Subsections (b) or (c).

(b) If the illegally taken animal is a bull moose, desert bighorn ram, rocky mountain bighorn ram, rocky mountain goat or bison, a permit for an alternative species and an alternative once-in-a-lifetime or limited entry area that has been allocated more than 20 permits may be issued.

(c) If the illegally taken animal is a bull elk, buck deer or buck pronghorn, a permit for the same species on an alternative limited entry area that has been allocated more than 20 permits may be issued.

(4)(a) The division may issue only one poaching-reported reward permit for any one animal illegally taken.

(b) No more than one poaching-reported reward permit shall be issued to any one person per successful prosecution.

(c) No more than one poaching-reported reward permit per species shall be issued to any one person in any one calendar year.

(5)(a) Poaching-reported reward permits may only be issued to the person who provides the most pertinent information leading to a successful prosecution. Permits are not transferrable.

(b) If information is received from more than one person, the director of the division shall make a determination based on the facts of the case, as to which person provided the most pertinent information leading to the successful prosecution in the case.

(c) The person providing the most pertinent information shall qualify for the poaching-reported reward permit.

(6) Any person who receives a poaching-reported reward permit must possess or obtain a Utah hunting or combination license and otherwise be eligible to hunt and obtain big game permits as provided in all rules and regulations of the Wildlife Board and the Wildlife Resources Code._


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

As pointed out in the article. The poacher was charged with "unlawful taking of wildlife" not "wanton destruction" thus, under the law they could not issue the reward permit.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Nothing but sour grapes here to see! If life was "fair", then horses would get to ride humans half the time. Well, guess what, life ain't "fair". Get over it. 

Old Fudd, you and Jeff Quibell are twisting reality to fabricate an injustice that doesn't exist. The guidebook doesn't say 'call the hotline and get a tag'. It does not say 'call and if the person is convicted/fined, you get a tag'. It says: If you call, and your information is useful in "successful prosecution for wanton destruction of wildlife", etc, then a tag is an option. That is just the way it is, and the very system Jeff called in on. He probably rightly expected a successful prosecution for wanton destruction, but it simply didn't happen. It won't always happen. Get over it.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

You are right. Life is not fair. 

But this ordinance was put in place to help people care and make a better choice. So they will now go back to not caring and this will help nobody. Your loss.......


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> You are right. Life is not fair.
> 
> But this ordinance was put in place to help people care and make a better choice. So they will now go back to not caring and this will help nobody. Your loss.......


this is sad.

This is a case of hunters not liking the draw system, and looking for alternate ways to get a LE tag.

this individual said in his interview that he would never again work with the DWR. It makes me wonder: Had he ever worked with them previously??? Or was this opportunity for him to receive an LE tag his first and only opportunity of working with the DWR?

Again, sad. Black eye for all of us.

It's sad that hunting has become this lucrative.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

It is sad.

Did the guy turn himself in because his own guilt or because he was seen? How do you mis-identify a 6 point versus a cow or spike?

But after this report you can bet there is going to be a few people that would have gotten involved who will not. This program was put into place for those people and not for those who usually make the good choice.

In fact if there really is less of these kind of tagges issued, then a better way is just to say there is a reward and leave it at that.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Huntoholic said:


> You are right. Life is not fair.
> 
> But this ordinance was put in place to help people care and make a better choice. So they will now go back to not caring and this will help nobody. Your loss.......


This _Administrative Rule_ was put in place to incentivize the unprincipled to do what the principled individual would otherwise do that is right simply because it is right. There's no problem with that. Many people need a little help to choose to stick their neck out. That's great that the incentive is in place. But, you are still choosing to suck on sour grapes of your own choice. The Administrative Rule is very clear about the conditions. If the conditions are not met, they are not met. No amount of whining will change that.

I would like to think that the system would have hit this poacher a bit harder, and a tag would have been issued. But the fact is he was not convicted of wanton destruction of wildlife, so there is no tag that is going to be issued per the Admin Rule. Perhaps Jeff was so disgusted with "wasting" half a day, that he refused to participate as a witness in hearings. Perhaps even with a witness statement, without a recoverable bullet to match to the gun, there simply was no chance to convict for wanton destruction. I don't know, but what is clear is that this particular case does NOT qualify for issuance of a tag. Pretty simple.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

PBH said:


> Head Cheeses? Of the DWR?
> 
> Remember who writes the laws: State Legislature.
> 
> It's YOUR voting that makes these laws.


In the case of this reward program, it is the DWR. Admin Rule 657-5-22 is drafted by DWR, authorized by WB, and only tangentially touched by the Legislatures Admin Rules committee. The legislature does not draft it, does not get in the details, etc.

UAC Sections 23-14-18 and 23-14-19 (the law from the Legislature) are cited as the authority of the rule. Both only authorize the WB to make the admin rules, and specify nothing about the reward program specifics. In this case, the fine details are left to the DWR/WB to hammer out.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Very careful use of the words "sometimes" and "may" in the verbiage of both the Guidebook and the Administrative Rule. There's no guarantee or promise implied even if the perpetrator were to be convicted of wanton destruction.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Charina said:


> This _Administrative Rule_ was put in place to incentivize the unprincipled to do what the principled individual would otherwise do that is right simply because it is right. There's no problem with that. Many people need a little help to choose to stick their neck out. That's great that the incentive is in place. But, you are still choosing to suck on sour grapes of your own choice. The Administrative Rule is very clear about the conditions. If the conditions are not met, they are not met. No amount of whining will change that.
> 
> I would like to think that the system would have hit this poacher a bit harder, and a tag would have been issued. But the fact is he was not convicted of wanton destruction of wildlife, so there is no tag that is going to be issued per the Admin Rule. Perhaps Jeff was so disgusted with "wasting" half a day, that he refused to participate as a witness in hearings. Perhaps even with a witness statement, without a recoverable bullet to match to the gun, there simply was no chance to convict for wanton destruction. I don't know, but what is clear is that this particular case does NOT qualify for issuance of a tag. Pretty simple.


You are right...

But you and I just lost. Because one thing I am sure of is he will not get involved again.

Good job.......


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

The day I feel bad for not giving enough incentive to somebody so they will do the right thing is a day I hope never comes. 

I agree we all lose when people don't choose to do the right thing. But, I won't feel bad when somebody gets their feelings hurt cause they didn't get a big enough reward. $500 for a mornings worth of doing the right thing seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

willfish4food said:


> The day I feel bad for not giving enough incentive to somebody so they will do the right thing is a day I hope never comes.
> 
> I agree we all lose when people don't choose to do the right thing. But, I won't feel bad when somebody gets their feelings hurt cause they didn't get a big enough reward. $500 for a mornings worth of doing the right thing seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.


Just a little information of why this guy might be a little bummed.

If it were me we were talking about on the Manti's, the 500 dollars means nothing. I can work and make that money. But what I will most likely not ever get is a branched bull rifle tag on the Manti's. Time has run out. By the time my waiting period is over and I have enough points to draw, I will be in my 70s or dead.

I guess that is why I could feel the guys disappointment.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I didn't read the article, so excuse me if I'm reading into this incorrectly. So is the hunter that turned in the poacher the only expected to do the "right" thing just because it is the "right thing to do?" Do we excuse the DWR from doing the right thing here, just because it's the right thing? 

Stop with all this entitlement bull crap. If I am not speeding, I expect to not get pulled over and issued a speeding ticket. If I pay for a service, I expect to get that service. If I comply with the law regarding turning in a poacher, I expect to get the reward outlined. That is not entitlement. That is "the right thing" in each situation. The principle of rewards and consequences is as old as the universe. If a specific punishment or reward is articulated for specific behavior, you should expect the promised outcome. I hate to break it to ya, but that ain't entitlement. That's just dumb.


----------



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

Fowlmouth said:


> Have you ever made a call to the poaching hotline? I have twice and both times I was treated like the criminal. They spent more time questioning who I was then what I saw. Never again! I'm not wasting my hunting time to try and help out. I didn't expect anything out of it other than someone to show up and write a ticket.


Same here.
Marked the spot with GPS, go back to the vehicle and then drive to cell phone range. Was told they couldn't send anyone out to follow up.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

LanceS4803 said:


> Same here.
> Marked the spot with GPS, go back to the vehicle and then drive to cell phone range. Was told they couldn't send anyone out to follow up.


I have called the hotline twice and both times there was a officer there within 4 hours which surprised me.

You have to figure that there are not that many officers out there to come investigate a incident and those that are out there may be on the other side of the district doing a investigation on another incident.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Look, I get the disappointment the guy feels. But, to cry injustice and call the news over the situation is going overboard in my opinion. That's like me getting upset that I didn't really win the Millions of dollars publishers clearing house keeps telling me I won in the mail. If you don't know the rules because you didn't read the rule book or you assumed something incorrectly, you're going to be disappointed. But that doesn't mean some injustice was done.

I'm pretty sure nobody here want's the DWR to be doling out reward permits like candy just because someone feels they met the burden of the law granting the permit. That permit is a huge reward and no doubt worth more than the $500 dollars or even $1000 to many. But, but that's precisely why the requirements to get the reward are so difficult to meet. 

Vanilla - The guy didn't get the reward permit because the DWR did not charge the poacher with crime that would warrant the reward. The poacher was charged with a lesser crime and that didn't meet the qualifications of the reward.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Pitty Party? Cry Baby? A guy from California comes to Utah Shoots a Trophy Bull That was with 30 Cows . (GENE POOL) from the Bull Down the tube. ....I guess there are a few people who think a guy does the right thing according to the law and his a puss! Some folks think this guy is Pi--ed because of the State draw for a tag.Nope . I'am always have been. But hey I hunt with a Bow and thats it. This guy does not. As for injustice. He got the run around for 6 months. The guy was charged with a crime... Don't blame the message blame the messenger. So the next time someone sees a game law being broken in front of you, go sit down with the person . have a sandwich and a beer and just call it a Pitty Party. Come On Man. The Guy did the Right Thing. if it doesn't sit well with a few people . guess thats human nature.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

When, oh, when will the wildlife agencies realize that they have to start hammering people with bigger fines when they harvest animals illegally? Why was the hunter who illegally killed the bull not charged with a felony? 

So it's not ok to reward an individual for his help in this case, but it's ok to take tags out of the public draw, give them to a "conservation" organization and then not ask for any accountability on where the funds received from the auctioning off of the tags went???


----------



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

Critter said:


> I have called the hotline twice and both times there was a officer there within 4 hours which surprised me.
> 
> You have to figure that there are not that many officers out there to come investigate a incident and those that are out there may be on the other side of the district doing a investigation on another incident.


I'm a LEO, so I understand handling other calls. You have to prioritize. But, just get back with the complainant at some point.


----------



## bekins24 (Sep 22, 2015)

Were the requirements met to issue the tag? Technically no because he was not charged with the crime that merited the tag being issued. Do I think that the DWR might keep that in mind when charging the criminal? I don't know but it does seem a bit messed up that the poacher gets off so easy for taking such a nice animal. I can understand going easy on someone who makes a mistake, but there is no mistaking a 6x6 for a spike. I think there was another thread on here not too long ago that talked about a guy who had been caught poaching multiple times and said that he would continue to do it because the penalty was only a minor fine and he would gladly pay that to keep taking animals he didn't have tags for. If it were a steep fine, confiscate the gun, truck and everything else, maybe that would deter some people from thinking twice about poaching. 

Honestly I had no clue about the reward permits until this thread popped up, but if I saw someone poaching, I would still call it in because it is the right thing to do. Who cares about a stupid reward? I would call getting someone caught and off the mountain a reward enough but if they just have to pay a fine and then they are back, seems like a slap in the face to those reporting.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> If I comply with the law regarding turning in a poacher, I expect to get the reward outlined. That is not entitlement. That is "the right thing" in each situation.


Ok, fair enough...BUT, the reward "outlined" was not a tag in this situation because the law the poacher was hit with did not meet the criteria as "outlined" in the law.

Whether the man should have or should have not been charged with the more significant crime is irrelevant in this case...he wasn't. And, by law, the whistle blower couldn't get the tag. So, he was given a monetary reward.

I call any whining about it an "entitlement" issue plain and simple. To me, this guys argument is akin to a lottery winner complaining that he doesn't get the whole award and has to instead pay taxes. Every year I play a game on my Iphone called "Beat the Streak". Simply put, if I pick a MLB player to get a base hit on 56 straight days, I win 5.6 million. But, despite the game clearly stating that I will win 5.6 million, I would NEVER see all that money because of tax obligations. I would be playing the "entitlement" game just like the guy in this poaching case if I complained about not getting all 5.6 mill.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Ok, fair enough...BUT, the reward "outlined" was not a tag in this situation because the law the poacher was hit with did not meet the criteria as "outlined" in the law.
> 
> Whether the man should have or should have not been charged with the more significant crime is irrelevant in this case...he wasn't. And, by law, the whistle blower couldn't get the tag. So, he was given a monetary reward.
> 
> I call any whining about it an "entitlement" issue plain and simple. To me, this guys argument is akin to a lottery winner complaining that he doesn't get the whole award and has to instead pay taxes. Every year I play a game on my Iphone called "Beat the Streak". Simply put, if I pick a MLB player to get a base hit on 56 straight days, I win 5.6 million. But, despite the game clearly stating that I will win 5.6 million, I would NEVER see all that money because of tax obligations. I would be playing the "entitlement" game just like the guy in this poaching case if I complained about not getting all 5.6 mill.


I believe your analogy is off. Here is why.

Shooting a 6 point bull in a spike area is a "WDofW" offence.

Your analogy would closer match the situation, if the "Gaming Board" ruled on pay out day, since gambling is illegal in Utah, you can only receive a refund of the money spent.

I'm pretty sure if this was the case you would whine also......


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It all depends on just what evidence they have on what charges are filed.

It sounds like they didn't have enough on him to charge him with a major offence so they charged him with a lesser one. 
It happens all the time.

If you really think that he or anyone should get a LE tag for turning in someone you are going to have to get the legislature to pass a law saying that if you turn someone in that leads to ANY CONVICTION results in you getting a tag.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I love all of the "getting the run around" and "you have to keep after them" comments.

I picture this very much like the "CSI" crime lab affect. On TV, the lab can process the evidence and have a conclusion in a matter of minutes. In real life, things take time to play out.

I can just see this reward tag playing out: 
Whistle Blower: Where is my tag? Why don't I have it yet?
LEO: I haven't even written the citation yet!
Whistle Blower: Well, when will I get my tag? What's taking so long?
LEO: After a conviction is made
Whistle Blower: is it ready yet? I don't understand why you guys are dragging your feet.
LEO: ugh.
Whistle Blower: (I have to really keep after these guys!) Judge Judy would have resolved this already! What's wrong with UT??
LEO: huh? Why are you recording me with your cell phone?
Whistle Blower: So I can send this conversation to Get Gephardt and get on TV! I'm going to be famous! I wonder if Huntin' Fool would publish my story and get me some free gear and sponser me as a hunter for the rest of my life and create a line of camo for my truck.....
LEO: I should have taken the "dead deer in the road" call....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Your analogy would closer match the situation, if the "Gaming Board" ruled on pay out day, since gambling is illegal in Utah, you can only receive a refund of the money spent.
> 
> I'm pretty sure if this was the case you would whine also......


Again, the offense is of no matter. It doesn't matter what the guy did or did not do...only what he was convicted of. That is according to the law. Like it or not, that is the way the game is played.

As far as whining in the gambling analogy goes, it works only if the whiner is complaining about the refund given after the rules in the fine print clearly state that those persons gambling from states where gambling has been outlawed will only receive reimbursement for money spent and not the entire lottery winnings....because in the poaching situation those rules were "outlined"!

Because the rules were and are clearly stated before the situation arose, how can he whine? What legs would I have to stand on to whine?

I think this is a clear situation of not knowing the rules and whining after the fact about it....and then calling the rules unfair! It is definitely an "entitlement" problem in my eyes!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

W2U,

Your analogy is pretty terrible. It's so terrible that I don't believe a smart guy like you even believes that. A better use of your analogy would be that the company running your game you play determined "In our discretion, we're going to count the hit on May 9th as an error, so therefore you don't get the prize, but we'll give you a hot dog instead." 

Yes, the DWR and/or prosecutor in charge did not file the level of charge necessary for the reward program. (even though they could have, it appears) That goes back to several comments on here about law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges need to start taking these cases more seriously if we ever want to reduce their frequency. 

He doesn't get his tag. I don't really care either way, to be honest. Some of the comments here rubbed me the wrong way, especially the stupid use of "entitlement." That has become such a fun politically charged word these days, so many people don't even know what it means.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> W2U,
> 
> Your analogy is pretty terrible. It's so terrible that I don't believe a smart guy like you even believes that. A better use of your analogy would be that the company running your game you play determined "In our discretion, we're going to count the hit on May 9th as an error, so therefore you don't get the prize, but we'll give you a hot dog instead."


The rules didn't change! The stayed the same the entire time...in the game I described earlier--Beat the Streak--if the player I chose reaches base on what is initially ruled an "error" but a day later is changed to a "hit", I still don't get credit for the hit. So, I still lose. That rule is clearly outlined in the game. Just like the rule about reaching a conviction is clearly outlined in the law. You guys act like the DWR intentionally pushed for a lesser charge in order to avoid giving a tag....

The reality is that the rules clearly state that the person must be convicted of the more serious crime. What is the argument beyond that. The rule wasn't changed; it is stated clearly. And, in fact, the law also states that "sometimes" a tag may be awarded...but not always. "Entitlement" is believing you deserve or have the right to something...how can this guy feel like he "deserves" or has the right to the tag when the offender wasn't convicted of the crime?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Again, the offense is of no matter. It doesn't matter what the guy did or did not do...only what he was convicted of. That is according to the law. Like it or not, that is the way the game is played.
> 
> As far as whining in the gambling analogy goes, it works only if the whiner is complaining about the refund given after the rules in the fine print clearly state that those persons gambling from states where gambling has been outlawed will only receive reimbursement for money spent and not the entire lottery winnings....because in the poaching situation those rules were "outlined"!
> 
> ...


You say the situation is clear. I say hog wash.....

From the Story as outlined:
1. 6-point shot out of season on a LE Unit.
2. Animal left to rot.
3. 2 eye witness.
4. Individual turns self in.

Now if the DWR told the hunters that they were not good witnesses, ie didn't see individual shoot, could not really ID him or his vehicle, ya da ya da, then I could understand DWRs stance. But if the DWR lowered the citation just to cut the individual some slack, JP is hard to work with, or DA did have time to deal with it, then I say the guy should get the permit. If the witnesses were willing to follow through and items 1 through 4 were true, then any reasonable individual would expect the promised permit as outlined in reg's.


----------



## justismi28 (Aug 19, 2014)

> Some of the comments here rubbed me the wrong way, especially the stupid use of "entitlement." That has become such a fun politically charged word these days, so many people don't even know what it means.


Definition of Entitlement as defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary.


> entitlement:
> the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something
> the feeling or* belief that you deserve* to be given something (such as special privileges)
> a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement


This situation seems to fit that definition. This guy could be entitled to a tag had the prosecution effectively punished the poacher. However, by the strictures of the admin rule, they don't award tags unless the information directly leads to a guilty verdict in a wanton waste of wildlife case(even then not a guarantee as pointed out in the careful wording). So he did not have a right to a tag at any point of this process. However, the guy was still rewarded for his effort and information. But he had a *belief that he deserved* a tag and should be given more than the $500 he was offered for his efforts. So based on what we know, it seems he has a sense of entitlement to said tag that he was never guaranteed.

Please explain to me how it has been used wrongly in this thread? I'm not trying to start an argument, just making sure that we are all understanding each side of the argument.


----------



## bekins24 (Sep 22, 2015)

When I think of entitlement I'm more inclined to think of it as not doing anything but expecting something. Or cashing in on someone else's efforts. In this case yes it loosely fits the definition of entitlement but it isn't what a lot of people think about when they think of entitlement.... Just my thoughts.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> You say the situation is clear. I say hog wash.....
> 
> From the Story as outlined:
> 1. 6-point shot out of season on a LE Unit.
> ...


I say none of the above matters because none of it has anything to do with a conviction. The law is in place for a reason. The results of the whistleblower's work did not result in the necessary conviction and, therefore, the whistleblower is not "entitled" to a tag. It is cut and dried. It sucks, but it is the law.

Just like in my Beat the Streak game...if I were to pick hitters in 55 straight games to get a hit but on game 56 my player goes 0-4 but reaches on an error that is changed to a hit a day later, I still don't win the 5.6 million. It sucks, but it is the rule!

Again, the tag isn't promised either! The law states that "sometimes" a tag is awarded and that the whistleblower must meet certain criteria...one of which they clearly did NOT meet. End of story!


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Again, it all boils down to the very carefully worded Administrative Rule and excerpt from the Guidebook and the use of the words "MAY" and "SOMETIMES". There is nothing promised... nothing guaranteed... regardless of the severity of conviction. 

It's like when I tell my kids that we "might" go get a treat, or they "may" get to go to a friends house. I tell them that to shut them up and get the job done that I want done... and when it's done if I feel like getting them a treat or letting them go to their friends house then I do so at my discretion. They will kick and scream saying that I promised them when in fact I promised them nothing... guaranteed them nothing.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

derekp1999 said:


> Again, it all boils down to the very carefully worded Administrative Rule and excerpt from the Guidebook and the use of the words "MAY" and "SOMETIMES". There is nothing promised... nothing guaranteed... regardless of the severity of conviction.
> 
> It's like when I tell my kids that we "might" go get a treat, or they "may" get to go to a friends house. I tell them that to shut them up and get the job done that I want done... and when it's done if I feel like getting them a treat or letting them go to their friends house then I do so at my discretion. They will kick and scream saying that I promised them when in fact I promised them nothing... guaranteed them nothing.


And the next time you want something done, you more then likely will not get the same level of work. Fudge on it a second time I would bet respect is lost, and your promise will mean nothing in the future.

Just my opinion.......


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Huntoholic said:


> You say the situation is clear. I say hog wash.....
> 
> From the Story as outlined:
> 1. 6-point shot out of season on a LE Unit.
> ...


But it is clear. By the law - No felony conviction, NO chance at a tag.

I don't see where the situation gets confusing. Had there been a conviction, and they balked at awarding the tag for other reasons, maybe there's some confusion and wrong doing. Or maybe there's legitimate reasons under the law for why it wasn't awarded. There was NO CONVICTION so we'll never know.

And if we apply the, "there should have been a felony conviction so they should award the tag anyway (even though it's *against the law*)" mentality, how many more of these precious LE/OIaL tags will be awarded? I'm willing to bet it would be more than the DWR or any of you would want them to give out.

Leave ALL of that alone, and the biggest problem with that mentality is, you'd be introducing a huge amount of subjectivity into the system. Who gets to make the determination that one poacher should have been convicted of a greater crime but another was convicted of the correct one? Talk about setting yourself up for people to accuse you of cheating them out of something they deserve.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Huntoholic said:


> And the next time you want something done, you more then likely will not get the same level of work. Fudge on it a second time I would bet respect is lost, and your promise will mean nothing in the future.
> 
> Just my opinion.......


Not if they REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to go to their friends or that treat!

Otherwise, sure, I have to follow through on it every now and again and let them run over to their friends house... but I still get to use my discretion and don't have to every single time. That's why my kids call me dad... because I'm in charge and I get to decide (technically mom is, but that's besides the point). Parents who give in every single time are why we have this "entitlement issue" and are largely enablers themselves... but that is just my opinion.

And neither does the DWR in this case. They have intentionally worded these rules to give the DWR the power of discretion. And they do issue the poaching reward tags... they chose, by virtue of the wording of these rules, to NOT issue the tag in this particular case.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

willfish4food said:


> But it is clear. By the law - No felony conviction, NO chance at a tag.
> 
> I don't see where the situation gets confusing. Had there been a conviction, and they balked at awarding the tag for other reasons, maybe there's some confusion and wrong doing. Or maybe there's legitimate reasons under the law for why it wasn't awarded. There was NO CONVICTION so we'll never know.
> 
> ...


The root of this issue is why there was no felony. The problem with most of these issues is in fact we do not know all of the story. I get that. I also know that within the legal system cases are blown off for some pretty dumb reasons. Nothing to do with whether there was enough evidence or witnesses.

Forget the tag. If I witnessed a 6 point bull being wasted and went to the trouble of reporting it. Then found out the individual only got a slap, I would be asking why?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

derekp1999 said:


> Not if they REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to go to their friends or that treat!
> 
> Otherwise, sure, I have to follow through on it every now and again and let them run over to their friends house... but I still get to use my discretion and don't have to every single time. That's why my kids call me dad... because I'm in charge and I get to decide (technically mom is, but that's besides the point). Parents who give in every single time are why we have this "entitlement issue" and are largely enablers themselves... but that is just my opinion.
> 
> And neither does the DWR in this case. They have intentionally worded these rules to give the DWR the power of discretion. And they do issue the poaching reward tags... they chose, by virtue of the wording of these rules, to NOT issue the tag in this particular case.


I guess I just never found the need to play weasel word games with my kids. Playing weasel word games is why kids have trust issues.

And that is my opinion........

I guess we have beat this horse enough.........


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Huntoholic said:


> I guess I just never found the need to play weasel word games with my kids. Playing weasel word games is why kids have trust issues.
> 
> And that is my opinion........
> 
> I guess we have beat this horse enough.........


Strike a nerve? "Weasel word games", huh?

We need to learn, society in general, to read the words that are actually there instead of the ones we want to read. Many read that excerpt from the administrative rule or the guidebook and immediately think that if they turn in a poacher they will get a tag when that simply isn't the case. But that's what guys read and that's what they want to believe. Then when what they thought they read doesn't happen they get their tighty whities all in a bunch. A little bit of reading comprehension and understanding of what certain words actually mean really goes a long ways.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

This is getting a tad ahhh for lack of a better word, stupid. What happened to the idea that you done something because it was the right thing to do? Tag or no tag----


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

You folks r jst to ent el e gent 4 me for me.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

This thread is what happens when hunters/sportsmen have to wait too long for their draw results!

Post this subject in Sept./Oct. and it might not even make it through the first page of posts.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

KineKilla said:


> This thread is what happens when hunters/sportsmen have to wait too long for their draw results!


IN the social media waterfowling circles of Arkansas we have a name for this phenomena; we call it the "Season of Hate" now a days it pretty much 24-7 365:mrgreen:


----------



## OKEE (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm going to turn in any dirt bag poacher I see.:-x If I get anything for it THANK YOU!. If I get nothing I'll still have my warm fuzzy feelings .


----------

