# Dead elk in Piute county



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I went for a drive on Saturday. As I drove through Kingston Canyon below Otter Creek Reservoir I saw numerous DWR trucks on the side of the road and a group of officers walking out to the middle of a field along the Sevier River. There were two dead elk in the field.

I'm only assuming, but it looked like a poaching case to me. Anyone else see or hear anything about this?

I hope they catch the [email protected]@rds!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I really, really wish the state would take a tougher stance on poaching. I'm not a big proponent of the theory of deterrence for most crime. However, I think poaching is the type of crime where if a very stiff penalty awaited anyone that was caught poaching, the amount of poaching would go down significantly.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

TS30 said:


> I really, really wish the state would take a tougher stance on poaching. I'm not a big proponent of the theory of deterrence for most crime. However, I think poaching is the type of crime where if a very stiff penalty awaited anyone that was caught poaching, the amount of poaching would go down significantly.


+1.

RE"As I drove through Kingston Canyon"

Did you stop to fish? If so, how was it?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I like that the proc says if you have ever been found guilty of poaching an OIL species, you can't apply for THAT species again. Not a direct quote, but along those lines. Should you be allowed to hunt ANY oil again?

That is why the stories where someone gets caught, it is often their umpteenth time. "They will lose their hunting privileges for 6 years..." After poaching 10+ animals.....


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

TS30 said:


> I really, really wish the state would take a tougher stance on poaching....


this is Piute county we're talking about. They don't recognize Federal and State law enforcement!!

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...egade-BLM-Forest-Service-officers.html?pg=all

Also -- I couldn't tell for sure, but I do not believe that the two dead elk I saw on Saturday were bulls. I'm pretty sure they were cows. Shot, and left to rot.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

For a 1st time DUI there is a statutory mandate of 2 days of jail (minimum). For a 2nd DUI that minimum goes up to 10 days in jail. For a 3rd DUI the minimum goes up to 62.5 days in jail. (assuming the 2nd and 3rd are committed within 10 years of the 1st) 

I realize with poaching there is not the public safety concern as there is with a DUI. However, I would propose some "shall" language in the statute when it comes to the penalties for poaching. In too many cases I think courts go easy on poachers because they don't care or it simply "isn't a big deal." I'd like to see RMEF, SFW, UWC, MDF, and any other alphabet soup organization to all come together and lobby the legislature (not WB) to increase the minimum mandatory penalties for poaching. 

First offense for poaching-minimum mandatory 5 days in jail and a 5 year loss of hunting AND fishing privileges in Utah. 

Second lifetime offense-20 days minimum mandatory jail sentence and lifetime loss of hunting AND fishing privileges in Utah. 

3rd lifetime offense- Charged as a felony regardless of what animal is poached, minimum mandatory 100 days in jail. 

These numbers could be fluid. What I do know is that we need to be tougher on poaching than where we are currently. I really do think this is the type of crime that if the punishment was severe enough, the crime would go down. For the vast majority of other crimes I don't think that would be the case. But this is of the nature that I think we can reduce it through deterrence.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The problem with poachers is that they just don't care. Most of the ones that are caught don't have a legal license in their pockets or would be able to purchase one for a number of years. I also think that any person caught poaching or thrill killing should be charged with a felony. Take away their guns and ban them from hunting and fishing permanently with no plea bargaining. But then they will purchase firearms illegally and hunt and fish anyway until they get caught again and thrown into jail a number of times.


----------



## Gunner73 (Dec 3, 2007)

We saw them down there as well.. We were wondering what they were doing.

Fishing was slow on Otter Creek..


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

You will never stop "poaching" until the people in our small towns and rural areas stop protecting their members that are doing the deed. Every small town has it's poaching families. I know it would be hard to turn your friends in, but gee's, if they just won't stop the killing after you mention it to them a couple time, maybe an anonymous phone call might help. Of course, the real solution would be for families to start raising the children to not be poachers. Many families that poach don't believe it is poaching, or at least, don't look at it as poaching cause they feel an entitlement because they live in the rural areas and have always "taken" a animal when they wanted to or needed the meat. Bottom line is, it's a very tough problem to overcome when you have people living together in the same community, going to the same schools and churches, marring each other and expecting them to turn their friends in for a violation that they don't feel is too important or that they participate in themselves.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

The simple fact is there are enough laws and regulations on the books to take care of poachers. 

Our justice system has lost it's way. 

They don't seem to be able to discern the difference between a 12 year old with one to many fish and a person shooting big animals in the dead of winter for the fun of it.

Maybe a solution is to concentrate our efforts on the justice system.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Anyone remember this?

http://www.richfieldreaper.com/news/local/article_8719e546-93cb-11e1-bf3c-001a4bcf887a.html

My personal opinion is that these killings are NOT thrill killing, or what most of us would relate to standard "poaching".

I think there is a war in Piute county. I think cattlemen, who's grazing rights have been taken away, are taking up arms against any Federal agency, and State agency, involved in land management or wildlife management.

Again, keep in mind that some of these rural counties have taken measures to remove the BLM, Forest Service, and any other agency to enforce laws. The ONLY agency they acknowledge is the local sheriff. I wonder why they acknowledge that dept??

scary stuff. I would suspect that we'll be seeing more of these killings....


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

If this case is ever solved, which I doubt it ever will be, they won't find it's the typical poaching incident. Storm clouds over elk on private lands have now been moved over to public land for the last year, starting in a small area and spreading to across the State. First at the county law enforcement level, then to county governments and now to State Legislators and it will end up in the State Legislature and possibly because it's now a public lands issues, it may will end up in the Federal Courts. 

Expect a major news media report any day now on the conflict that's boiling over Federal land use in Utah. Every sportsmen better forget about their internal hunting and fishing conflicts immediately and get a united grip on the use of Federal public land use in Utah.

These two elk, one killed, one wounded and then put down by the UDWR, were shot for a reason, IMO. It was a message to you!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

osageorange said:


> If this case is ever solved, which I doubt it ever will be, they won't find it's the typical poaching incident. Storm clouds over elk on private lands have now been moved over to public land for the last year, starting in a small area and spreading to across the State. First at the county law enforcement level, then to county governments and now to State Legislators and it will end up in the State Legislature and possibly because it's now a public lands issues, it may will end up in the Federal Courts.
> 
> Expect a major news media report any day now on the conflict that's boiling over Federal land use in Utah. Every sportsmen better forget about their internal hunting and fishing conflicts immediately and get a united grip on the use of Federal public land use in Utah.
> 
> These two elk, one killed, one wounded and then put down by the UDWR, were shot for a reason, IMO. It was a message to you!


Is this mostly in regards to HB155? Do you care to elaborate more? Unfortunately, these "sagebrush rebellion" bills tend to be more bluster than substance and, if passed, do little except drain the states coffers in legal fees to unsuccessfully try to defend them in court.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder -- in part, yes. HB155 plays a part of this story. The other part is the cattle part. BLM and Forest service have removed numerous grazing permits. That has not set well with those cattle outfits, who believe they have the right to run how many cows they want, where they want, when they want, without a Fed telling them anything. Put the grazing permits together with Federal enforcement and....well.....you get the picture. 

In the eyes of the cattlemen, the reason the permits have been revoked is because of elk -- not because they ran too many cows in areas they weren't supposed to be! Thus, we're seeing dead elk. This is all just my opinion.


Osage is correct -- a message is being sent. A battle is being waged against sportsmen.


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

PBH said:


> this is Piute county we're talking about. They don't recognize Federal and State law enforcement!!
> 
> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...egade-BLM-Forest-Service-officers.html?pg=all
> 
> Also -- I couldn't tell for sure, but I do not believe that the two dead elk I saw on Saturday were bulls. I'm pretty sure they were cows. Shot, and left to rot.


Are you sure they were shot and left to rot? Did anyone stop. Or were they maybe hit by a semi and wandered off to die? I looked for any accounts of it in the news and couldn't find anything.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

longbow said:


> Are you sure they were shot and left to rot? Did anyone stop. Or were they maybe hit by a semi and wandered off to die? I looked for any accounts of it in the news and couldn't find anything.





osageorange said:


> *These two elk*, one killed, one wounded and then put down by the UDWR, * were shot for a reason*, IMO. It was a message to you!


fairly confident. But, again, I'm just forming an opinion here. I didn't walk out and look at the carcases. There were plenty of others already surrounding the animals -- they didn't need another "looky lou" to join the party.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Well if that is the case, I can see this getting ugly real quick.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Huntoholic, sorry to say but it's already extremely ugly. You may be just hearing about it but it's been a simmering pot for many years with the heat that's been applied, the pot has or is about to boil over. While it may appear to be a local issue it will be coming to a meadow close to you soon enough. We're going to get see who's really in charge of public lands any day now. I'm guessing it's not the Federal agencies. Suit up gentlemen.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

osageorange said:


> Huntoholic, sorry to say but it's already extremely ugly. You may be just hearing about it but it's been a simmering pot for many years with the heat that's been applied, the pot has or is about to boil over. While it may appear to be a local issue it will be coming to a meadow close to you soon enough. We're going to get see who's really in charge of public lands any day now. I'm guessing it's not the Federal agencies. Suit up gentlemen.


I guess I must be living in a bubble, because I'm really not sure what is going on down there.

I guess we"ll have to wait and see......


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

huntaholic,

I'm not asking for new laws for poaching. I'm asking for stiffer penalties for the laws already in place. "Shall" language in the statute that doesn't allow the local yocals to do what they want and the local rural judge to not do anything when they do. I agree, address the justice system. You do that by passing laws dictating what HAS to happen. "Mays" in the law aren't worth the paper they are written on. "Shalls" are what is needed. Judges and prosecutors hate "shall" language, but we'll deal with it. I think it's needed.

As far as the sagebrush rebellion, you are probably right that these elk were shot to send a message. Time for the law to hit back and send a message back. Send a rancher to jail for 180 days and see if his buddies are as quick to pull the trigger next time. I'm not trying to eliminate poaching. It will never happen. But I do think we can cut the number of incidents down.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

TS30,

I understood what you were saying. The problem arises with mandates is in dealing with innocent mistakes. People make mistakes and should not be hung out to dry. I would much rather have a Judge or JP who has some common sense and dishes out justice to fit the crime.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

[quote k:E=Huntoholic;751049]I guess I must be living in a bubble, because I'm really not sure what is going on down there.

I guess we"ll have to wait and see......[/quote]

It's like the Hatfield's and the McCoy's.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

martymcfly73 said:


> [quote k:E=Huntoholic;751049]I guess I must be living in a bubble, because I'm really not sure what is going on down there.
> 
> I guess we"ll have to wait and see......


It's like the Hatfield's and the McCoy's.[/QUOTE]

I know for a fact that there are Hatfield relatives living in Spanish Fork. Work with one of em


----------



## CROC (Sep 12, 2007)

Don't worry the DWR will get it in the news next month when no one remembers anything important they might have seen today.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Huntoholic said:


> TS30,
> 
> I understood what you were saying. The problem arises with mandates is in dealing with innocent mistakes. People make mistakes and should not be hung out to dry. I would much rather have a Judge or JP who has some common sense and dishes out justice to fit the crime.


An innocent mistake is not poaching. Not every wildlife violation is a poaching situation in my mind. And I think the current laws on the book differentiate between the innocent mistakes that are still against the law and those that are willful and wanton.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

If they were hauling the elk out whole, you can bet the property they were on belongs to that Gary jackwagon who was causing hell a couple of years ago claiming that the migrating elk were tearing up his place and his cousin (the sheriff) wasn't going to do a **** thing about it. He owns property in that area as well as up by Kingston WMU. I was hoping the reaper had found his mangy butt already.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Per the CO's that were at the transplant on Sunday, it was a cow and a calf and, yes, it was poaching with obvious gunshot wounds. And yes, they plan on using the media to help solve it.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

TS30 said:


> An innocent mistake is not poaching. Not every wildlife violation is a poaching situation in my mind. And I think the current laws on the book differentiate between the innocent mistakes that are still against the law and those that are willful and wanton.


I guess that depends on who is writing the citation or making the arrest.

All one has to do is go lookup the definition of poaching and you will see it can cover a wide area.

I would much rather have a good Judge or JP dish out justice based on the indivdual offence. If the Judge or JP is not doing the job, then work on removing them.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

TS30 said:


> As far as the sagebrush rebellion, you are probably right that these elk were shot to send a message. Time for the law to hit back and send a message back. Send a rancher to jail for 180 days and see if his buddies are as quick to pull the trigger next time.





klbzdad said:


> If they were hauling the elk out whole, you can bet the property they were on belongs to that Gary jackwagon who was causing hell a couple of years ago claiming that the migrating elk were tearing up his place and his cousin (the sheriff) wasn't going to do a **** thing about it. He owns property in that area as well as up by Kingston WMU.


People are starting to piece things together. Legislation introduced to restrict federal and state authority? Why would they want that?

Now, I wonder whose grazing permits have been revoked? hmmmm.....


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

So let me make sure I understand....

These ranchers, Gary Allen included, had grazing rights for PUBLIC land but didn't want elk on their property even though they were using a public resource. So, he shot 7 elk. This could have been prevented by a 3 day period in which the DWR could have responded? Then they have to spend their time anyways retrieving the dead animals? Now that the ranchers have lost the PUBLIC resource, they are shooting more elk?

Am I on to the theory?


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Your concerns should not be focused on a individual but a general movement. There is a movement in hand. Your wildlife populations and future hunting opportunities are where you need to watching and investigating. These two elk aren't the issue, they are symbolic of a line in the sand. Do your due diligence. Hint. Legislators don't get involved in poaching cases. Federal land agencies don't get involved in poaching cases. The lines are drawn and there is an OK Corral situation here. Who blinks and who doesn't matters to you. I'm betting the Feds. blink.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

osageorange said:


> Your concerns should not be focused on a individual but a general movement. There is a movement in hand. Your wildlife populations and future hunting opportunities are where you need to watching and investigating. These two elk aren't the issue, they are symbolic of a line in the sand. Do your due diligence. Hint. Legislators don't get involved in poaching cases. Federal land agencies don't get involved in poaching cases. The lines are drawn and there is an OK Corral situation here. Who blinks and who doesn't matters to you. I'm betting the Feds. blink.


:rotfl:Thanks! I needed that this morning. My Comedy Central feed is on the fritz.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

osageorange said:


> Your concerns should not be focused on a individual but a general movement. There is a movement in hand. Your wildlife populations and future hunting opportunities are where you need to watching and investigating. These two elk aren't the issue, they are symbolic of a line in the sand. Do your due diligence. Hint. Legislators don't get involved in poaching cases. Federal land agencies don't get involved in poaching cases. The lines are drawn and there is an OK Corral situation here. Who blinks and who doesn't matters to you. I'm betting the Feds. blink.


The line in the sand is that the land belongs to the people of the USA not to the ranchers. The people of the USA determine the best use of the land not the ranchers. This will turn out very badly for the ranchers if they keep up this foolishness and unbridled criminal activity.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> The line in the sand is that the land belongs to the people of the USA [ranchers]. The people of the USA [ranchers]determine the best use of the land.


I think the above is how the people of many rural counties feel, including the ranchers.



LostLouisianian said:


> _This will turn out very badly for the ranchers if they keep up this foolishness and unbridled criminal activity_.


how so?


----------



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

RandomElk16 said:


> So let me make sure I understand....
> 
> These ranchers, Gary Allen included, had grazing rights for PUBLIC land but didn't want elk on their property even though they were using a public resource. So, he shot 7 elk. This could have been prevented by a 3 day period in which the DWR could have responded? Then they have to spend their time anyways retrieving the dead animals? Now that the ranchers have lost the PUBLIC resource, they are shooting more elk?
> 
> Am I on to the theory?


Spot on


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

The Gary issue is a little deeper concerning use of lands that NOBODY is supposed to be grazing their livestock on but yes, that is a great summation Random.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> This will turn out very badly for the ranchers if they keep up this foolishness and unbridled criminal activity.


Completey legal if game animals are destroying crops or causing
damage on private land ..........


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> Completey legal if game animals are destroying crops or causing
> damage on private land ..........


Not completely legal if you don't contact the DWR first and adhere to the waiting period.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-n...367-two-cow-elk-poached-near-otter-creek.html


----------



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

goofy elk said:


> Completey legal if game animals are destroying crops or causing
> damage on private land ..........


Apparently these were not. And don't get me started. These two cows were poached and left to waste.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

It seems the news story and DWR bulletin are a little anti-climatic to what was being talked about.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

same thing I was thinking.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

_Its all part of the cover up, the Fish and Game does not want anyone to know how allied they are with the federalies, and the Taliban, so they are trying to down play the whole event, by playing it off as a "poaching" incident. They don't want everyone to see them blink, in this high stakes, winner take all, staring game. But we all know who just blinked, don't we_.........sorry, I ran out of tinfoil, it ended up more like a beanie, than the 10 gallon hat full I was shooting for.

_Tune in next time, when we'll find out if aliens are the cause of our wildlife declines, and if the IRS has known about it all along._ 

_This is apocalyptical voice over font if anyone is wondering._


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

mule -- huntaholic: what did you guys expect? It's an ongoing case....



i guess they could have spruced it up a bit, like Lonetree.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Other comments earlier made it sound like the case was coming to an end and things were about to boil over. The articles gave the impression that this is just another poaching case and not a case which might be deeper in issue.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

PBH said:


> mule -- huntaholic: what did you guys expect? It's an ongoing case....
> 
> i guess they could have spruced it up a bit, like Lonetree.


It was just an impression man. Lighten up.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Huntaholic -- personally, I think this case is still in the initial phases.

I'll be real curious to see what happens in the coming months, when it's time to move cattle from the valley to the mountain. My speculation is that the water is just starting to heat. My gut says there is more to come...


----------



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

PBH said:


> Huntaholic -- personally, I think this case is still in the initial phases.
> 
> I'll be real curious to see what happens in the coming months, when it's time to move cattle from the valley to the mountain. My speculation is that the water is just starting to heat. My gut says there is more to come...


There's more to come, this is my gripe with whine ass landowners and ranchers . They keep taking the dirty path they'll wind up in a puddle of **** eventually.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20140313/NEWS01/303130052/Bunkerville-rancher-ready-new-BLM-fight

don't know if this guy is related to the families in Piute county or not. Sure sounds like the same fight down there. More to come? I think so....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I don't get the mentality of some of these ranchers….what gives them the idea that they can run cattle wherever they wish? It doesn't matter to me whether the land is state or federal…what matters is that the land is NOT his!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

W2U...it is a crazy entitlement mentality that the industry has. I don't get it, personally. You point it out and they immediately go to the "just challenge us and see how the price of beef goes...you really want that fight?!?!" argument.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Back aways, I read a solid sounding article on beef production on western U.S. Forest Service mountain land where the author claimed that this public land grazing produced less than 2 percent of the nations beef. If this is correct, these ranchers have minimal impact on beef supply and prices. Can anyone clarify this?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I have heard that too...but don't know how true it is. What I can find, though, is that Utah raised about 0.91% of the total beef produced in the US. By way of comparison, Idaho raised 2.5%, Nevada raised 0.52%, Wyoming raised 1.45%, Colorado raised 2.83%, and Arizona raised 1.05%. I am thinking that if the BLM or the USFS told the ranchers of Utah to pound sand and raise their cattle on their own land that cattle prices wouldn't change much!

http://www.cattlerange.com/cattle-graphs/all-cattle-numbers.html


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> I have heard that too...but don't know how true it is. What I can find, though, is that Utah raised about 0.91% of the total beef produced in the US. By way of comparison, Idaho raised 2.5%, Nevada raised 0.52%, Wyoming raised 1.45%, Colorado raised 2.83%, and Arizona raised 1.05%. I am thinking that if the BLM or the USFS told the ranchers of Utah to pound sand and raise their cattle on their own land that cattle prices wouldn't change!
> 
> http://www.cattlerange.com/cattle-graphs/all-cattle-numbers.htm


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

I would guess that the majority of the beef is raised in California, Texas or back east. My understanding is that grass grows more prominently back east without having to blow out water resources to more easily feed the beef in their non native land. More money is spent out west just to move the water to grow the alfalfa that is sent to China and feed the small herds out here. Whispers of changing how farmers out west utilize their property could mean better return on their investment of land if they would just grow the right product and spend less moving water. Just stuff I heard nothing I have researched.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Here is some more interesting information&#8230;.this paper discusses what would happen if cattle were forced off public lands.
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_taking_stock.htm


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

fishsnoop said:


> Whispers of changing how farmers out west utilize their property could mean better return on their investment of land if they would just grow the right product and spend less moving water. Just stuff I heard nothing I have researched.





catch 22 said:


> Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a longlimbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, _and he made a good thing out of *not* *growing any*_. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did *not *grow. The more alfalfa he did *not* grow, the more money the government gave him, _and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce._ Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa...
> 
> ...Major Major's father was an outspoken champion of economy in government, provided it did not interfere with the sacred duty of government to pay farmers as much as they could get for all the alfalfa they produced that no one else wanted or for not producing any alfalfa at all.


Snoop -- you don't honestly believe that someone like Noel is raising alfalfa because he wants to _grow_ alfalfa? He's not going to grow the right product -- he's going to show a loss so that he can collect his subsidy check from the same government he's working VERY HARD to kick out! (I know you know this. Just a Rhetorical question)

The problem is that the counties have learned very quickly. They watched and listened as the State discussed taking over Federal Lands. They then said; "hey, if the State can kick out the Feds, then maybe WE can kick out the State!"

can of worms. Pandora's box. Whatever you want to call it -- it's open.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> Here is some more interesting information&#8230;.this paper discusses what would happen if cattle were forced off public lands.
> http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_taking_stock.htm


Interesting. One thing I didn't see in the article with regards to the agricultural source of jobs derived from Welfare Ranching............ the percentage of herders that are legal tax paying citizens.

It has been a while since I have seen "Joe Cowboy" herding in the hills.

It is usually "Jose Vaquero" and I highly doubt that he files a tax return.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> It is usually "Jose Vaquero" and I highly doubt that he files a tax return.


oh, he's filing alright. But he's filing under the name of Henry Jones, James Smith, and Leonard Johnson. He knows that by not filing he'd be missing out on all those returns!!


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=49000&progcode=totalfarm&regionname=Utah


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Interesting. One thing I didn't see in the article with regards to the agricultural source of jobs derived from Welfare Ranching............ the percentage of herders that are legal tax paying citizens.
> 
> It has been a while since I have seen "Joe Cowboy" herding in the hills.
> 
> It is usually "Jose Vaquero" and I highly doubt that he files a tax return.


Depends on the situation, most sheep and cattle herders are now coming from South America, and only have 3 year work visas. About the time they learn English, and the job, they have to go home. This is bad for all kinds of reasons, it drives poor herding practices because they are inexperienced which is bad for resource utilization, and it actually drives illegal immigration. In the past, when we had South American herders, they were truly migrant labor. They herded in South America half the year, and up here, the other half, and they knew the job. I could care less if they paid taxes, $600 a month is not worth taxing.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

fishsnoop said:


> http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=49000&progcode=totalfarm&regionname=Utah


Interesting set of names on this list; Ault, Ferry, Garn.

Hmmmm. -Ov-


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I care if they pay taxes. If they get hurt on the job they reap the benefits of the taxes that I pay. They haul their gear on roads that I helped pay for and if they have kids going to school, I help educate them.

Another conversation for me though. The readers of this thread don't want to hear me spew on the subject I am sure.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Interesting set of names on this list; Ault, Ferry, Garn.
> 
> Hmmmm. -Ov-


#232 Browns dairy in Coalville and on and on we let these folks dictate the laws of the land.
What a big f'n joke we have created. Un-elect these clowns and do it before they take all of our resources for themselves.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

fishsnoop said:


> #232 Browns dairy in Coalville (not surprised to see Mel on the list too) and on and on we let these folks dictate the laws of the land.
> What a big f'n joke we have created. Un-elect these clowns and do it before they take all of our resources for themselves.


All the while decrying the evils of the Federal Government and it's payouts. A bit hypocritical of the politicians, don't you think?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

That list of subsidies is NOT surprising. Not in the least.


----------

