UT poaching?

The story i got was these guys had wounded a bull the night before and then shot this bull the next day. Both bulls were found dead by dwr. And the kid pictured above didn't have a tag.
 
Looks like Utah County... Cougar hunting is the only thing illegal in that area I think... sooo... That's my guess. :-D

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
PROBABLE CAUSE STATEMENT: Tait Larson, Division of Wildlife
Resources, having probable cause to believe a crime was committed, submitted evidence in
support of the filing of this Information: In the late evening of 9/14/2014, the defendants were
together hunting during the elk hunt. Only defendant Troy Monty had a hunting license for the
taking of a bull elk. At this time Defendant T. Monty shot and wounded a 6X7 bull elk (a trophy
animal by statute). The group made a small effort to locate the animal. They located blood where
it had been hit, but did not, due to the hour and location, follow the blood trail till finding the
animal. The shooting of the bull elk and the defendants' effort to find the animal were witnessed
by other hunters in the area. The defendants determined that they would look for it first thing in
the morning of 9/15/2014.
In the morning of 9/15/2014 Defendants R. Monty and Christensen report to the area where the
bull elk was shot, and conversed with one of the witnesses who saw the event, who had also
responded to the area to see if the animal had been, or could be, located. At this time R. Monty
had a rifle but was not dressed in hunter orange as required. This witness suggested that
defendants R. Monty and Christensen go down the hill as the wounded animal would take the
path of least resistance to escape. During this conversation the witness mentioned that others of
his hunting party were watching a 7X7 bull elk. Upon mentioning this defendants R. Monty and
Christensen seemed to lose interest in finding the 6X7 that defendant T. Monty had shot and
wounded the night before and it was turned to information of where the 7X7 bull elk was being
observed. Defendants R. Monty and Christensen told the witness that the 7X7 was the bull elk
wounded the night before, and would not accept the witness's indication that it was not because it
was a 6X7 that was wounded the night before, and the 7X7 being watched was not wounded.
The witness left the defendants at this time to return to his own hunting party.
Late in the evening of 9/15/2014, and after shooting hours had ended, members of another
witness' hunting party heard various shots fired, and on 9/16/2015 a picture of defendants R.
Monty and Christensen with a dead 7X7 bull elk were found posted on the social media site
called "Instagram."
Very disturbed by this, in the morning of 9/17/2015 the first witness and a friend went back to
the area where the 6X7 bull elk had been wounded on the late evening of 9/14/2015 by
defendant T. Monty. They found the carcass of the 7X7 which had been harvested. They then
looked for the 6X7 and found it a small distance downhill from where the witness had left
defendants R. Monty and Christensen after suggesting they go down the hill to look for the
wounded animal. The 6X7 bull elk had not been harvested, nor were there any indications that
humans had ever been near it, and it was now decomposing.
The witnesses called the DNR officers. It was determined that the carcass of 6X7 bull elk was
only about 450 feet from where the 7X7 bull elk was harvested.
The investigation began with interviews of defendants T. Monty, and R. Monty. Each of these
defendants presented false information to the officers to cover up what really occurred in the
wasting of the 6X7 and the taking of the 7X7 bull elks. Among other falsehoods, the most
blatant one made by each of them was that defendant T. Monty killed the 7X7 bull elk.
Defendant Christensen was later interviewed and told a story that also presented the same
falsehoods as Defendants Monty. When confronted with the true facts, Defendant Christensen
indicated that what officers knew was what actually took place, and that Defendant R. Riley had
called him told him that officers were going to question him, and gave him a "story" to tell the
officers, which story contained all the falsehoods as expressed by the Defendants Monty.
The Defendants Monty quickly decided to reveal the truth on the matter. Particular information
revealed was that Defendant R. Monty was the one who shot the 7X7, using Defendant T.
Monty's rifle and tagging it with Defendant Monty's tag. Defendant Christensen was with
Defendant R. Monty at this time. Defendant T. Monty had used binoculars to watch Defendants
R. Monty and Christensen go to the area where the 6X7 had been wounded on 9/14/2014, but
made no effort on his own to search for the wounded animal. He left the mountain with another
person around 1:30 PM on 9/15/2014. The kill of the 7X7 took place in a location which would
make it hard to get the harvested animal out, so defendants R. Riley and Christensen obtained an
off-highway 4-wheeler, and drove it down to where the 7X7 bull elk was located, harvested the
meat and placed it on the 4-wheeler for transport back to their camp.
On the morning of 9/16/2014, Defendant T. Monty returned to the group's campsite and brought
ice with him in which to pack the meat harvested from the 7X7 kill. The meat, head and antlers
were brought off the mountain. The meat was taken to a local business for cutting and
packaging. The head and antlers were taken to a local taxidermist..
Based upon evidence received from Tait Larson, Division of Wildlife Resources, I have
reason to believe the defendant(s) committed the offense(s) as charged herein.


?If men were angels, no government would be
necessary.? John Adams
 
Could be an honest mistake. Guys are looking for one bull. Go look at another. Decide its not the one. Keep looking after dark and stumble upon another bull in the dark that they think is him and kill it. They say both bulls were within 450 feet of each other. I have actually seen this happen twice before. Once just last month. I have actually heard of it happening once where three animals got killed over a two day period while tracking one wounded one.
 
Yea, but the problem here is the kid pictured above killed the bull without a tag. The guy with the tag wasn't there and had left the night before.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-23-15 AT 09:48AM (MST)[p]I believe incidents like this occur as frequently or even more frequently than what we typically think of as poaching. I remember several poaching incidents where individuals used tags for different areas to tag animals killed in LE units. I remember incidents exactly like this one where an animal was killed by someone in the party, but not the tag holder.

This situation is even more disgusting as it appears the tag holder abandoned the animal he had mortally wounded to hopefully seek out another animal nearby. And even when he was not present, someone else in his party then killed that second animal, after dark it sounds like, and tried to cover it up.

I hope all those involved in the deception and poaching are given stiff penalties.

I hope the "witness" that observed the situation, found the first kill, and reported it will receive a tag to hunt that unit... I wish he could also be awarded the 6x7 trophy he found, but I don't think that is allowed.

Good job by the DNR Officers involved as well, piecing together a complicated crime.

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
So why would a person who has a tag, has wounded an animal, searched for that animal, saw another animal established it was not his animal, left the scene without finding his animal, is now a "defendant"?
It looks like he had an opportunity to be a poacher, declined, and went home.
 
I am not a lawyer, but wouldn't he be part of the crime because his tag was used? Unless he can prove that they stole his tag and then used it??

Rut
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-23-15 AT 11:57AM (MST)[p]>SO is it illegal to hand
>your tag to a buddy
>and say stick it on
>my elk if you find
>him?

I don't know for sure, but I'll look it up! In any case, I do know it's illegal to lie to an investigating officer in an effort to cover up a crime whether committed by you or someone else! And it's illegal to abandon an animal that you know was wounded without making a reasonable effort to find it. And it's illegal to possess a game animal or its parts that you know was illegally taken. There also may be other reasons to make him a "defendant" that I'm not aware of.

It's possible that they may have mistaken one animal for another in the beginning, but to fabricate a story of the events after discovering the error is enough reason to indict!

Edit: Per Utah Code Title 23-Chapter 20-Section 30(2):
"The carcass of any species of protected wildlife required to be tagged shall be tagged before the carcass is moved or the hunter leaves the site of kill."

I think it's a tough call on this issue, but not the others.
 
Awesome, father and son poachers. Looks to be a simple case of Utards being Utards.


No estas en mexico ahora, entonces escoja tu basura
chancho sucio.
 
Something else going on here guys. Would you shoot an animal and not go look for it? But your son and friend do go look for it????? The witness statements don't match the "true" statements given by the defendant. Either the wardens aren't telling the truth about what they know, the defendants aren't telling the truth or this is a very poor case of reporting. Either way I'm at the point I don't believe any of them.
 
>SO is it illegal to hand
>your tag to a buddy
>and say stick it on
>my elk if you find
>him?

Did he say that or did he say, "I'm going home, shoot and tag that 7x7 if you get the chance".

The devil is in the details.

Rut
 
"Did he say that or did he say, "I'm going home, shoot and tag that 7x7 if you get the chance".

The devil is in the details."


Why would he say that? They already could have shot the 7x7 and they let him walk.
 
It's pretty simple Pig.

Pop shoots 6x7. Pops leave area. Son and friend make halfass attempt to find bull. Son who does not have a tag wants to shoot his own bull and shoots 7x 7. Takes hero shot and posts it on social media to show what great hunter he is. The rest is history.
 
>"Did he say that or did
>he say, "I'm going home,
>shoot and tag that 7x7
>if you get the chance".
>
>
>The devil is in the details."
>
>
>
>Why would he say that?
>They already could have shot
>the 7x7 and they let
>him walk.


Until they went back later and shot it without the tag owner present.
 
Not that simple shortgun. Go back and read what the witnesses said happened. Its not what you just stated.
 
"Until they went back later and shot it without the tag owner present. "

So what's the difference? Poach an animal with the tag holder present or absent it is the same charge. SO where is the logic?
 
Tristate,

A PC statement is a basic synopsis of the facts. You may already know this, but it in no way is the entire investigation. The PC statement comes first in an arrest so it may in fact be that the father wasn't charged as the rest of the investigation unfolded. This PC statement is for one person, but lists the dad because he is involved. Involved to a criminal level after the investigation would be the true question. So none of us have all the facts, just that the was an arrest, this guy is out on an ankle GPS monitor, and he killed a bull without a tag and tried to cover it up.
 
Tristate,

where did you read that the defendants let the 7x7 walk off????.....

...you might reread the story......and if I was a warden I'd watch you like a hawk.
 
>"Until they went back later and
>shot it without the tag
>owner present. "
>
>So what's the difference? Poach
>an animal with the tag
>holder present or absent it
>is the same charge.
>SO where is the logic?
>


Stick to asking and answering one question at a time Tri.

What LOGIC are you referring to? Best case scenario, the original tag owner knew he killed the first bull, couldn't find it, asked his son to find it and went home at which point the son went back and shot another bull and put his dad's tag on it and lied about what happened. Worst case scenario, dad knew he killed the original bull, saw a bigger bull, but knew there were people watching, decided to go home but before leaving told his son to shoot the bigger bull when no one was around.
You are correct, either way it is poaching, it is just a matter of whether the father was part of the plan.

Rut
 
"What LOGIC are you referring to?"

I am sorry if more than one question is more than you can handle but "what logic" is exactly what I am talking about. THERE IS NO LOGIC IN THE REPORT. You try and intergect your logic with your assumptions but you don't even know for sure. Kind of like assuming a 7X7 is bigger than a 6X7. Plus your assumption that the dad told the son to shoot a bigger bull which according to the report the witnesses say the father never saw. You did notice that another hunting party was watching the 7X7 but it wasn't good enough for them to kill. You have three hunting parties sitting on the same hole. Two dead elk within 450 of each other, one of which was never approached by the shooter, and a bunch of sour grapes between competitive hunting groups.
 
I know of one huge 36" buck in a Utah sporting goods store. It was shot in Pauns but the tag was Book Cliffs. Sad when people need a trophy and have to steal that way.
 
>Tristate,
>
>and if
>I was a warden I'd
>watch you like a hawk.
>

+1

Tri ALWAYS takes the side of the poacher. I almost predicted he would when I first saw the post but decided he would see it as a challenge and that would be entrapment. I notice it took him a couple of warm up posts to set the stage. Probably had lunch with his lawyer friends first.

Homer, you just got sucked to the hog wrestling tournament. I thought you knew better.


[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
>"What LOGIC are you referring to?"
>
>
>I am sorry if more than
>one question is more than
>you can handle but "what
>logic" is exactly what I
>am talking about. THERE
>IS NO LOGIC IN THE
>REPORT. You try and
>intergect your logic with your
>assumptions but you don't even
>know for sure. Kind
>of like assuming a 7X7
>is bigger than a 6X7.
> Plus your assumption that
>the dad told the son
>to shoot a bigger bull
>which according to the report
>the witnesses say the father
>never saw. You did
>notice that another hunting party
>was watching the 7X7 but
>it wasn't good enough for
>them to kill. You
>have three hunting parties sitting
>on the same hole.
>Two dead elk within 450
>of each other, one of
>which was never approached by
>the shooter, and a bunch
>of sour grapes between competitive
>hunting groups.
>

I didn't ASSUME anything, I suggested a couple possible scenarios, big difference.

Also, because I am clearly not as smart as you are, could you tell me the definition of "intergect"?
 
Show me one single place in here NVB where I took the side of the poacher?

Who I don't take sides with is internet juries who read a sorry written report like this AND START TAKING SIDES!
 
>Awesome, father and son poachers. Looks
>to be a simple case
>of Utards being Utards.

I teach Hunter's Ed up here, and we stress two things: safety and ethics. We teach that as an ethical hunter, you're obligated to put every effort possible into recovering the animal, even if it means passing up a bigger, better one on the way. Reading the Probable Cause statement, it sounds a lot like these guys tossed aside a "worthless" 6x7 in order to take the 7x7. If so, that's the worst kind of hunter, and I hope their hunting privileges are revoked permanently. Apart from taking an elk they didn't have a tag for, it's a ##### move to horn in on an elk that is known that someone else is trying to take.

A lot of the other instructors up will discontinue their hunts entirely if they wound an animal but can't recover it. One and done.
 
well, I know the real story behind this.


Rileys dad drew the tag after 13 years of waiting. Riley scouted his ass off looking for an elk for his dad to kill months before the hunt. actually he spent the entire LE archery hunt on the mountain scouting and helping a friend try and kill a bull on the archery hunt. Riley finally found the one he thought his dad should kill. They had 4 experienced hunters including riley and his dad watching this elk when they killed it. they all agreed it was the 6x7 they were looking for with the kicker off his left side (our right side). the elk was actually a 7x7 but the 7th point on his right side (our left side)was barely visible because it was only about 1 or 2 inches long. hence in the police report it says 6x7 and 7x7. they actually got the shot on film but it was so blurry it didn't help much. Riley dad shot within legal shooting hours the evening of September 14th. they knew it was a hit but did not see the animal drop. they gave the elk an hour or so and went down in to look for blood. they got there and found a couple quarter sized drops of blood when they heard what sounded like an elk busting out of the trees. by this time it was to dark to see and also illegal to shoot. so they did the ethical thing and backed out hoping to find him the morning.
unfortunately Rileys dad had to leave the mountain to sign some tax documents being it was the last day. so Riley went to look for the bull hoping he was laying down there dead.
riley and one of his friends looked all day high and low for the elk. looking for blood, birds, smell, following every trail up and down. that evening they decided to head up and sit on a hill hoping they might glass some birds or the bedded wounded elk. about 20 minutes before sundown they spotted the elk rileys dad had shot the night before. the elk had hobbled out just little ways away from where Riley's dad shot him the night before. it was unmistakable that this was the elk Rileys dad had shot the night before based off the 16 inch kicker on the elks left side (our right side). This elk was sick, his head was down he could barely walk and looked not good. Watching this suffering animal got the best of riley and knowing they might not ever see the elk again. riley decided to do what he felt was the right thing by putting elk down.
rileys dad met riley on the mountain the next day with a bunch off ice and they got the elk off the mountain and saved all the meat.

THATS THE SHORT AND REAL AND TRUTHFULL SORY.

Granted they did find another dead elk up there, semi close to where the elk rileys dad shot was . but that doesn't mean anything. there where a dozen hunters up there and gun shots were going off around the clock. anyone could have shot that elk and not been able to find it.

The guy that turned riley in was up there helping his friend that had a tag, try and kill an elk. they were after the elk that riley dad killed. The guy wrote a book as a police report. and probably just wanted a tag. in the guys police report they were a dozen or so lies that were just insane. which made it obvious he just wanted a tag.
 
one more thing. when riley dad shot the elk Sunday night they had marked a very specific tree. the tree had been rubbed so good that it had a perfect ball of leaves on the top. they knew that is where the elk was when rileys dad first shot it.

the guy that turned riley in. actually hiked clear down in to where riley and his friend were looking for the elk. he proceeded to tell them he watched elk drop over here which the elk was never even in the area. riley knew right were the elk was standing when his dad had shot it, but the guy insisted it was up the hill 50 yards.

to me that sounds fishy who would hike clear down into a place to tell another hunter this info if he wasn't trying to detur them from finding the elk. he knew the elk was above them on the hill bleeding out. and he wanted his friend to kill it.



R. Monty reported to the area where the
bull elk was shot, and conversed with one of the witnesses who saw the event, who had also
responded to the area to see if the animal had been, or could be, located. At this time. This witness suggested that
defendants R. Monty go down the hill as the wounded animal would take the
path of least resistance to escape. During this conversation the witness mentioned that others of
his hunting party were watching a 7X7 bull elk. Upon mentioning this defendants R. Monty seemed to lose interest in finding the 6X7 that defendant T. Monty had shot and
wounded the night before and it was turned to information of where the 7X7 bull elk was being
observed.
//////////////////////////////////////////////
 
>one more thing. when riley dad
>shot the elk Sunday night
>they had marked a very
>specific tree. the tree had
>been rubbed so good that
>it had a perfect ball
>of leaves on the top.
>they knew that is where
>the elk was when rileys
>dad first shot it.
>
>the guy that turned riley in.
>actually hiked clear down in
>to where riley and his
>friend were looking for the
>elk. he proceeded to tell
>them he watched elk drop
>over here which the elk
>was never even in the
>area. riley knew right were
>the elk was standing when
>his dad had shot it,
>but the guy insisted it
>was up the hill 50
>yards.
>
>to me that sounds fishy who
>would hike clear down into
>a place to tell another
>hunter this info if he
>wasn't trying to detur them
>from finding the elk. he
>knew the elk was above
>them on the hill bleeding
>out. and he wanted his
>friend to kill it.
>
>
>
>R. Monty reported to the area
>where the
>bull elk was shot, and conversed
>with one of the witnesses
>who saw the event, who
>had also
>responded to the area to see
>if the animal had been,
>or could be, located. At
>this time. This witness suggested
>that
>defendants R. Monty go down the
>hill as the wounded animal
>would take the
>path of least resistance to escape.
>During this conversation the witness
>mentioned that others of
>his hunting party were watching a
>7X7 bull elk. Upon mentioning
>this defendants R. Monty seemed
>to lose interest in finding
>the 6X7 that defendant T.
>Monty had shot and
>wounded the night before and it
>was turned to information of
>where the 7X7 bull elk
>was being
>observed.
>//////////////////////////////////////////////
>

Why was the son even carrying a rifle? He didn't have a tag for that unit. So if I wound a bull I can have everyone in camp grab a gun and go looking. Cool I shot a 400 class bull on the books anyone want to grab a gun and come help me look. IF you see a 400 its him KILL IT ill bring you the tag.
 
mountainman824

If I had to guess...you are either Riley and or the "friend" that was with him. Not that it matter who you are, just an observation. Just so I am clear, what you are saying is that Riley shot an elk in an LE area without a tag and had his father tag it the next morning? So Riley and a "Friend" were looking for an elk in a LE area during the hunt with a rifle in hand. That sounds a lot like hunting to me and it also meets the definition of poaching.

Something that sticks out to me: You said "This elk was sick, his head was down he could barely walk" and you also said "Watching this suffering animal got the best of riley and knowing they might not ever see the elk again". So which was it? The elk could barley walk and or he was afraid he would never find it again? It would seem that if the elk could "barley walk" Riley's dad could have found it in the area the next morning.

What is clear to me is that from your version of events it sounds like Riley was much more interested in the hunt than his dad.
 
Thanks for the additional info.

Although wrongs were done. It is nice to know that the poaching wasn't as blatant as the earlier version made it sound.
 
Riley just shot an elk on a le unit with out a tag!!!!!!! I don't care what his story is. He is a poacher plain and simple. Its black and white... no gray area. In my book he might as well shot it in November in the headlights.
 
If it is true that Riley shot a wounded bull to put it down, with or without a tag, he's more man than most of you.

I am sure you have all heard that a man is a person who will do the right thing when no one is looking. But I'll tell you its even more of a man that will do the right thing when everyone will prosecute him for it.

IF THIS IS TRUE, Riley did what most of yall don't have the balls to. Go back to being good little servants living in fear of your governors. Fire away.
 
Poaching does not make you a man. He didn't do the right thing! There were other hunters in the area with a tag! I wish I could pack a gun without a tag looking for wounded game. I see game all the time limping or laying around. So I will MAN UP and just kill everything that looks sick. UM NO.
 
Look everybody, Tristate is back for more attention!

Tri, please give us your definition of "right"?

If a man and his family are hungry, is it "right" for him to steal?

If the elk was being attacked by a mountain lion, is it "right" to shoot the mountain lion before the elk has to suffer?

If I get a flat tire is it "right" for me to take one off of another vehicle in the parking lot?

You are letting emotion play too big of a part in your determination of right and wrong. People are suffering all over this country, is is "right" to put them down?

Please educate us once more on the wrongs of society o wise one.

Rut
 
If you know something has a bullet in it and suffering you put it down. Quit whining like a bunch of women. YOU KNOW THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. You can come up with whatever hypothetical you want for chickening out and not doing it but that's the way men used to be raised when we were free and before we were living in fear of illogical and UNETHICAL laws.

We aren't talking about limping deer or elk with a lion scar. We are talking about an animal that the person KNEW had been shot the day before. EVEN THE COMPLAINTANT IN THIS STATED IT WAS MORTALY WOUNDED.
 
Ethics have a degree of subjectivity. As does the assertion that one is more or less of a man based on whether he would or would not illegally kill a wounded animal. Laws are more black and white, though open to interpretation by the courts.
If the kid feels he did the right thing and is willing to take the consequences, standing up straight, then we know he is solid on his ethics?whether we agree with it or not. Sounds like he would meet some statutory definitions of illegal activities. If he expects the legal system to cut him slack (don't know that he does), then he would be indicating a thinking pattern common in criminal populations.
As soon as we start expecting legal latitude based on extenuating circumstances, we are more or less advocating that we don't need laws. Extenuating circumstances tend to weigh into sentencing. Expecting considerations for self, that are unique and outside the norm for everyone else, is a classic narcissistic characteristic.
 
MMWB,

Good post except for one problem. I am not comparing stature of men singularly by whether they would or would not illegally put down gunshot game. I am saying he is more of a man than the stone throwers here who wouldn't do it and also slander men's names on the internet who do.
 
The biggest bull I have taken had been previously wounded. The butcher found an encapsulated bullet that was perfectley mushroomed under the shoulder blade of my bull. I measured the back end of the bullet and it was .277 so I guess a shot from a 270. I am very glad that somebody wasn't "more of a man than most of you" and decided to put the obviously injured bull out of its misery. I would never have had an oppertunity to take that great animal. The bull had clearly lived more the a year after a shoulder shot. It was running a heard of about 20 cows and was fighting numerous bulls to keep its heard. Long story short...Many times "mortaly" shot animals live. I would imagine that many butchers, hunters and ever taxidermist have seen the same thing.
 
He was such a stand up guy that he did what was "right" and then lied about it when questioned by the officers. If it was the right thing to do, why did he not only lie about it, but also call his friend and tell him to lie as well? A real man always makes his friends lie.....right?

You need to look a little harder for heros and role models Tri.

Rut
 
You killed one of the luckiest elk ever Utah400. Congrats on a great hunt and story. But the reality is THE VAST MAJORITY OF BIG GAME THAT IS SHOT AND LOST DIE FROM THEIR WOUNDS, in misery. It is exceptionally rare that they survive. In my entire career which spans a couple of decades and tens of thousands of big game animals I know of less than ten animals which have come through these doors which were shot with a centerfire rifle and lived through it. I can think of just a couple that survived being shot with a bow. That's the reality of it.
 
>This elk was sick,
>his head was down he
>could barely walk and looked
>not good. Watching this suffering
>animal got the best of
>riley and knowing they might
>not ever see the elk
>again. riley decided to do
>what he felt was the
>right thing by putting elk
>down.
>rileys dad met riley on the
>mountain the next day with
>a bunch off ice and
>they got the elk off
>the mountain and saved all
>the meat.

Up here in Idaho, that's a party hunt and illegal. Sometimes doing the ethical and right thing still lands you in hot water.
 
Was it Legal to take a Wheeler in to the Kill Site?:D


Go Ahead!

Make Me take it down!

9001hank2.jpg
 
Tri-polar,
Lets say dad gets caught up in moment and shoots the wrong bull.
Now we have a rag 4 wounded. Do you think the kid would MAN UP. I bet not!!!!!!!!! the only reason he did what he did was because it was a big bull.
 
Flatdead,

I have no idea what the first three sentences of your post are. Not sure that is English.

The last sentence of your post YOU DON'T KNOW.
 
Pretty sure you just outed your "friend" for poaching. He was in an LE Elk Unit, with a rifle, and no tag. You then state clearly that he did indeed kill the bull. While I think he is a good son to stay and look for the bull, having a rifle on his person, and then using that rifle to kill a bull in an LE Unit, is POACHING.

The father will have some accountability for then tagging the animal and lying to officers about the situation. These men all made poor decisions on this hunt.

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
>Flatdead,
>
>I have no idea what the
>first three sentences of your
>post are. Not sure
>that is English.
>
>The last sentence of your post
>YOU DON'T KNOW.

Doesn't matter. It was a party hunt, and that's a violation of Utah R657-5-15. Only under specific circumstances are you allowed to fill someone else's tag.

Maybe the kid can get the charges dismissed or reduced in court due to the circumstances, but the story doesn't entirely pass the sniff test. The law makes no differentiation between a mercy kill and poaching.
 
Riley,

When I heard about this I couldn't believe it. Its a shitty situation for everyone. I know your passion for the outdoors and hunting and eventually this will all be behind you. Although I don't agree with how this went down, your version of this makes sense. One thing that bothers me is this, What are your thoughts of the second bull found dead?? I know you lived up there all summer and had to be there everyday of the hunt.
 
It doesn't matter to you but it matters to people who think that the law should work for the good of people and the elk. In this case it does neither and the lemmings sit and say it doesn't matter.
 
"the guy that turned riley in. actually hiked clear down in to where riley and his friend were looking for the elk. he proceeded to tell them he watched elk drop over here which the elk was never even in the area. riley knew right were the elk was standing when his dad had shot it, but the guy insisted it was up the hill 50 yards.

to me that sounds fishy who would hike clear down into a place to tell another hunter this info if he wasn't trying to detur them from finding the elk. he knew the elk was above them on the hill bleeding out. and he wanted his friend to kill it."

The elk was up the hill 50 yards? Wow that's almost a whole mile. What's the point of that of the bull didn't drop on the spot???? That's great you/Riley knew right where it was standing when it was shot but you have no idea where it ran off to. Obviously the guy had a better view and saw the bull drop. He hike down there to tell you where the bull was so you wouldn't shoot another one. Pretty damn nice of him if you ask me. Also pretty damn nice of him to go find your dead bull for you when you wouldn't do it yourself. You also proved to be a liar , so I'll go ahead and believe the witness on this one. His motivation to turn your a$$ in is because he wanted a tag. Good one. You got greedy, you got caught, take your medicine and move on.
 
>It doesn't matter to you but
>it matters to people who
>think that the law should
>work for the good of
>people and the elk.
>In this case it does
>neither and the lemmings sit
>and say it doesn't matter.

Perhaps you should take some time to read through this thread again and note where I said that sometimes doing the right thing still gets you in hot water. I can sympathize with the guy, but the law makes no distinction.
 
BrowningRage

Pretty sure you just outed your "friend" for poaching. He was in an LE Elk Unit, with a rifle, and no tag. You then state clearly that he did indeed kill the bull. While I think he is a good son to stay and look for the bull, having a rifle on his person, and then using that rifle to kill a bull in an LE Unit, is POACHING.
The father will have some accountability for then tagging the animal and lying to officers about the situation. These men all made poor decisions on this hunt.
///////////////////////////////////////

he is already in trouble so I didn't out anyone.
yes he did have the rifle and yes that was a poor decision. but what if there were a bunch coyots on the carcass or a lion waiting for them. he had no intent on having to shoot the elk again, he was hoping to find the dead elk but instead found the elk wounded and tried to do the right thing. maybe not the legal right thing but the the morally right thing for the suffering animal.
 
>I know what you wrote elevenbravo
>and I know you stated
>it doesn't matter. I
>say it does.

Well I can agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

The kid still has a chance of the charges being reduced, dropped or thrown out given the circumstances, but the law is supposed to be blind and equal. The law states that except under limited circumstances, you are not allowed to party hunt or fill someone else's tag. Black-letter law.

He'll get his day in court as guaranteed by the Constitution, and have a chance to tell his side of the story.
 
Elevenbravo,

You are only focused on his legal challenges. I am talking about more than that. You have seen how these people behave towards who they decide is a poacher, right?
 
>Elevenbravo,
>
>You are only focused on his
>legal challenges. I am
>talking about more than that.
> You have seen how
>these people behave towards who
>they decide is a poacher,
>right?

From a legal perspective, he's a poacher. I don't know how many times I have to say that I sympathize with the kid although his story doesn't completely jive with me. That's for the courts to decide.

Here, I'll write it big so you understand:
[h1]I CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH THE KID BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN HE WAS RIGHT[/h1]

Please don't make me use the blink tags next.

Sorry if I don't display the requisite level of disdain for The Man and his Laws.
 
elevenbravo,

we are talking about two completely different things. Apparently you can't understand that. There is more to life than what the law says about you. Which by the way the law doesn't call him a poacher, that's a personal judgment by you.
 
Well 11B and Wikipedia. And probably Webster, come to think of it pretty much everybody but u tri.


poach?er2
ˈpōCHər/Submit
noun
noun: poacher; plural noun: poachers
a person who hunts or catches game or fish illegally.
 
We ain't talking about wikepedia. We were talking about the law. And the law has not said he is a "poacher". By the way I wouldn't take Wikepedia too seriously. I have seen some pretty messed up things on there. By the way you are proving my point for me.
 
Elk are tough animals... they have an insatiable will to live. This elk had obviously made it 24 hours. He may have died within the next 30 minutes, he may have died 3 months later from the wound... but he may have lived through it all too. I don't know, and I am not sure anyone on this thread knows. The fact is that bull had the right to fight for his life. There are many documented cases of a bull living after being hit in one lung.
 
I've had the opportunity to help a couple people on their hunts. Both times I left my rifle at home. It's their hunt, their tag, their right, and their responsibility to start it and finish it on their own. If you have to leave to sign a paper, I'll go with you and we'll come back when you can. I want no part of looking for a wounded animal on my own without a tag.

Eel

Guns are like parachutes. If you need one and don't have one you probably will never need one again.
 
I agree with Eel on this. I have too, gone and helped many people on hunts with out my own tag and I never even carried a rifle. I am there to help, spot, cut, pack and what ever else. But the LAW is the LAW and a poacher is a poacher. It can be turned any way you want. If he had to sign those papers, he should have had all his ducks in a row before the hunt. Thats too bad he had to leave to sign the paper. Riley or whoever, should have only spotted the bull and kept tabs on it until the hunter could return. Whether it was that night, next day or a week, he had no right to shoot the bull. ITS called party hunting and its against the law, and considered POACHING by definition, by law and by man. Well, most normal men.
 
Sometimes the law is wrong and yall are lemmings. Trained brainwashed people incapable of thinking for yourself. Incapable of seeing the good in anything unless the law tells you that you can.

I even love the references to this elk's "rights". Somehow elk which we had a right to blow a hole through now we have to be considerate of HIS "rights". That might be the funniest garbage I have read in a long time.

If a woman is having a baby and the husband speeds her to the hospital we can all look past that. Nevermind he put other people's lives at risk with his reckless driving. If a man breaks into a house to see if there is anyone in it while it is burning we look past that. But you throw stones at someone who shoots a stupid animal to keep it from suffering and return it to the man which shot it originally and you bunch of lemmings want him stoned to death.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-15-15 AT 12:26PM (MST)[p]"But you throw stones at someone who shoots a stupid animal to keep it from suffering and return it to the man which shot it originally and you bunch of lemmings want him stoned to death."

Tristate, Please explain to me the "other" bull that was laying dead right where the witness who saw them shoot it the night before. Also, WHY would they fabricate a story when they are questioned but then admit they lied??? Also WHY would Riley come on here and pose as a third person??
 
Browtine,

The witness did not see them shoot the bull dead. The "witness" claims another hunting party heard shots in the night in the vicinity. The accused has claimed no one within his party shot the other bull. There were at least three hunting parties within this small area. Now the report was horribly written but as best I can tell that's all you can get from it.

As far as admitting they lied, that's what it says in the report there isn't any transcript there of it. As for Riley coming on here as a third person maybe I missed something but did admit to doing that? I know he was accused of it. I don't think coming on a silly website under disguise is evidence of you being a poacher. If it is about two thirds of the people on here have some explaining to do.
 
"In the morning of 9/15/2014 Defendants R. Monty and Christensen report to the area where the bull elk was shot, and conversed with one of the witnesses who saw the event"

Above is what I was referring to. They heard the shot on the second bull after shooting hours and that is the bull they kept.
 
Tir said "Sometimes the law is wrong and yall are lemmings. Trained brainwashed people incapable of thinking for yourself. Incapable of seeing the good in anything unless the law tells you that you can."

That didn't hurt my feelings. That's my moral compass.

Would it be ethical for some stranger with a rifle to head out into a unit and follow hunters around and help them with follow up shots? That seems pretty humane too.

Eel

Guns are like parachutes. If you need one and don't have one you probably will never need one again.
 
Browtine, it's useless asking the Pig questions. The Pig from the big city in TexASS is so butthurt and jealous of us western folk, it doesn't matter what the subject is, or what the facts are he just comes on here to argue and tries to make himself sound more superior than us poor ol' ignorant western folk. If everyone was on the poachers side he would take the other just to argue with all the westerners. The Pig took the side of the Hyde Park poacher too, and we all know how that turned out. He's just a bitter, angry little man. It's quit pathetic and sad.
 
"Would it be ethical for some stranger with a rifle to head out into a unit and follow hunters around and help them with follow up shots? That seems pretty humane too."


That's a great question eel. Yes it would be ethical. In fact in many countries around the world THAT IS TOTALLY NORMAL. In some countries it is required.
 
Browtine,

That is the assumption that got you here. They don't know what the shots at night were into. AND THAT WAS SECOND HAND FROM ANOTHER HUNTING PARTY. According to the report that is the only bull the accused knew about. The report states they couldn't find evidence that anyone had ever seen or been to the kill site of the other bull. Why didn't this other hunter shoot that bull when he had the chance? We are lead to believe it is this wonderful bull that apparently nobody else wants.
 
Germany, Scotland, every single country I know of that has legal hunting on the continent of Africa. Some require and some it is allowed.
 
>"Would it be ethical for some
>stranger with a rifle to
>head out into a unit
>and follow hunters around and
>help them with follow up
>shots? That seems pretty humane
>too."
>
>
>That's a great question eel.
>Yes it would be ethical.
> In fact in many
>countries around the world THAT
>IS TOTALLY NORMAL. In
>some countries it is required.
>


Not legal in Utah. In the context of what happened in this discussion, that's what matters. What is or is not legal in other countries has no bearing on what happens here.
 
>Learn how to read slick.
>He asked if it is
>ethical not whether it is
>legal in Utah.

Might want to take a few classes on philosophy, ethics and law there, Ace. Since party hunts are illegal in Utah, the ethics question is moot.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-15-15 AT 08:53PM (MST)[p]Really? That's why you can't speed when it's an emergency? That's why you will get prosecuted for breaking and entering when a house is on fire????? It's the law slick. Obey the law and screw ethics, responsibility, or necessity. None of that matters cause you have law. If everyone in our country thought ethics and law were so inseparable you would be telling a black man that you own to type your stupid ideas for you.
 
Tell me where a second elk applies to this??? And where it says its not against the law??

" 78-11-22. Good Samaritan Act.
(1) A person who renders emergency care at or near the scene of, or during an emergency, gratuitously and in good faith, is not liable for any civil damages or penalties as a result of any act or omission by the person rendering the emergency care, unless the person is grossly negligent or caused the emergency. As used in this section, "emergency" means an unexpected occurrence involving injury, threat of injury, or illness to a person or the public, including motor vehicle accidents, disasters, actual or threatened discharges, removal, or disposal of hazardous materials, and other accidents or events of a similar nature. "Emergency care" includes actual assistance or advice offered to avoid, mitigate, or attempt to mitigate the effects of an emergency."
 
Browtine,

You are arguing something totally different than what I have been talking about. If you would go back up and read slowly through what I have written my stance on the rest of this thread is IF THE REBUTTLE OF THE REPORT POSTED HERE IS TRUE. In that report the defendant claims he had nothing to do with a second elk. Can you see we are talking about two totally different hypotheticals? You are still witch hunting from the warden's report. I am trying to discuss the hypothetical of using judgment IF the defendants story is true. Those are two totally different things. That's why I went and started another thread. I thought that would make it easier for people to see what direction I was taking this. I knew that was too much to ask.
 
Tri,

Lets put your example of breaking the law for the betterment of society in to a more comparable context. Would you look a blind eye to the man broke into a burning home to save a trapped woman, but when he got to the first woman he didn't think she was all that attractive but he did notice a better looking sister so he left the first one and then went and saved the hottie? Is that a "real man"?
 
I am very unsure what in the world you are talking about but I will give you another hypothetical.

A car rolls over partially ejecting an occupant and pinning him under the vehicle. People begin rendering first aid and calling the authorities. Soon the car catches fire and in screaming agony the trapped man begins to burn alive. One person walks up draws a pistol and shoots the man in the head.

Fire away mulecreek.
 
Answer the question.

You stated that sometimes real men break the law to do what is right. You then later cited a couple of example situations, one of which being the person that breaks into a house to see if a person needs saving. I am trying to put your example into the context of this discussion. Do you think we should look passed the act of breaking into the home to save the person if the man doing the saving is determining who to save based on their attractiveness?
 
I'll play with this silliness.

When a man breaks into a home to save someone I won't care in the least bit if he was able to save the "prettier" person over the uglier one. It was his ass on the line. Anybody in that situation can use what ever criteria for their decision inside that home and they aren't going to get a bit of flack from me.

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with the poaching case but there is my answer to your weird totally unrelated question.
 
The relation to this particular case is that I think it is safe to say that a lot of people feel the son that went and shot the elk for his father may have been doing so simply based off the size of the bull rather than his desire to save an animal from a agonizing death. You introduced the idea in Post #39 that possibly the kid was being a real man and just trying to put down a wounded animal and that this case had nothing to do with the size of the antlers but rather the size of this kids balls. You then introduced the earlier mentioned examples. Just trying to put your examples into the context of this case as I believe most people see it.

I have no idea what took place on that mountain. Neither do you. But I think even you would understand the cynical nature regarding these type of cases that many people have developed. It seems every year we get several posts from fellow hunters requesting help finding their wounded bull. We get posts about how people went back days after the shot to find their buck. We get posts about people that shot bulls without a tag. We get posts about people that hiked dozens of miles, spent weeks on the mountain, followed magpies and ravens looking for their dead animal. Lots of varied and interesting stories. However the one common denominator in all of these stories seems to be that the animals all have large antlers. Why do we never hear about the exhaustive search to end the agony of a suffering cow? Why is it that no one seems to go back three days later to find their fork-horn? Why does no one seem to request help finding their wounded spike bull? Are we to believe that no one ever wounds or looses these animals? Or could it be that for many of us our effort level, ethics or desire is more determined by having something to brag about than by the suffering of the animal?

You introduced the idea that the rest of us are just lemmings. Blindly following our federal overlords without the balls to do what is right. You introduced the idea that this kid was possibly just out their trying to end the suffering of an animal. I am simply trying to introduce the idea, to you, that this case has little to do with the animal suffering and more to do with the hunters wanting to get the best possible bull to brag about. Only a few people know for sure. But I certainly have a lot of examples to back up my idea.

Why does it seem so many of those examples are from Utah?
 
First of all I do not have to give merit to or understand cynicism.

Second how does a person get to brag about a trophy which another man shot and gets to keep with his tag on it.

Third I think it is equally illogical that this whole time everyone has assumed the tagged dead elk is the better elk.
 
>First of all I do not
>have to give merit to
>or understand cynicism.
>
Agreed. Not asking for you to give merit to it just throwing it out there.

>Second how does a person get
>to brag about a trophy
>which another man shot and
>gets to keep with his
>tag on it.
>
Perhaps we should ask Kirt Darner this question? I agree it is odd but seems more than a few people are willing to do it. The son and his friend had pictures posted on instagram the next day.

>Third I think it is equally
>illogical that this whole time
>everyone has assumed the tagged
>dead elk is the better
>elk.

There are a couple things in the witness statement that could cause a person to assume this.
 
There is generally a pattern in these types of cases that can be seen here. Based upon the probable cause statement, these guys broke the law, then they compounded the problem by providing false information to the investiagting officers in an effort to hide their crimes, and now they are being prosecuted. I will be surprised if this case ends in anything other then a conviction or a guilty plea. Tristate can attempt to stir this crap any way he wants but at the end of the day it will still be a steaming pile of crap. Carry on!

-Hawkeye-
 
>There is generally a pattern in
>these types of cases that
>can be seen here.
>Based upon the probable cause
>statement, these guys broke the
>law, then they compounded the
>problem by providing false information
>to the investiagting officers in
>an effort to hide their
>crimes, and now they are
>being prosecuted. I will
>be surprised if this case
>ends in anything other then
>a conviction or a guilty
>plea. Tristate can attempt
>to stir this crap any
>way he wants but at
>the end of the day
>it will still be a
>steaming pile of crap.
>Carry on!
>
>-Hawkeye-

If Tri gets on the jury it will be a hung jury 11 to 1 because he will ignore the judge's directive to stick to the known facts about the event. And since the known facts don't back up the defendants, he will follow the defense lawyer's lead and will pull as much emotion into the deliberations as he possibly can in an effort to get the guys off. The males on the jury will be called whiney women without balls, the women on the jury will be subjected to his plea to think of the fate of the poor suffering animal which, in his mind, overrides the facts. And no amount of logical conversation of the actual known facts or eye-witness testimony or even confessions is going to sway him. He's right and everyone else is wrong.

I've been there and done that! No, I wasn't the one, (in my case, two) that hung the jury after two days of trial and two and 1/2 days of deliberations. 2 kilos of cocaine smuggled into LA in a purse from Lima, Peru by a woman who claimed she didn't know it was there. She openly, but quietly, sobbed/sniffled most of the time. The two jurors? One had a girlfriend in Lima and the other was our go-to guy for the drug lingo and trafficking tactics used by dealers, though he swore he never used! We tried everything we could think of to convince them, (logic, science, handling the purse and cocaine with gloves, looking at courtroom videos, going back the judge for further explanations of his instructions, a dozen votes) but to no avail. They wouldn't budge from their very first vote.

The jury after us took less than 2 hours to convict her!

If I ever get indicted for poaching, I hope Tri's on my jury whether I actually did it or not!
 
>LAST EDITED ON Oct-15-15
>AT 08:53?PM (MST)

>
>Really? That's why you can't
>speed when it's an emergency?
> That's why you will
>get prosecuted for breaking and
> entering when a house
>is on fire????? It's
>the law slick. Obey
>the law and screw ethics,
>responsibility, or necessity. None
>of that matters cause you
>have law. If everyone
>in our country thought ethics
>and law were so inseparable
>you would be telling a
>black man that you own
>to type your stupid ideas
>for you.

False equivalency is a logical fallacy. You're really grasping for anything at this point and it's only making you look more desperate.
 
Just because you are not intelligent enough to realize the connection doesn't mean it isn't equivalent.

These are cases where the governments have recognized it is more beneficial for the citizenry to be free to use their judgment and protected your right to do so. They have not done the same, IN CERTIAN AREAS, in relation to wildlife management. Hence the problem we have here. If it can be done legally for one it CAN be done for the other. Do you get it slick?
 
>Just because you are not intelligent
>enough to realize the connection
>doesn't mean it isn't equivalent.
>
>
>These are cases where the governments
>have recognized it is more
>beneficial for the citizenry to
>be free to use their
>judgment and protected your right
>to do so. They
>have not done the same,
>IN CERTIAN AREAS, in relation
>to wildlife management. Hence
>the problem we have here.
> If it can be
>done legally for one it
>CAN be done for the
>other. Do you get
>it slick?

And like I said before, the kid will get his day in court. A nagging detail you refuse to understand because you're so busy fighting The Man.
 
That's what's amazing is you are so blinded you think this is about court and laws.

I couldn't give a flip about his court dates, or charges, or his punishment. We are discussing what we think of modern day ethics and the effect it has on wildlife. If you think that "day in court" is going to do one thing to save an animal or improve ethics, or change conservation practices you are living in a logical fallacy.
 
Tristate, I beg to differ with you. If USA did not have laws and punishment then it would be a much different place. If you could commit any crime and not have consequences then a lot of folks would plunder continually. Instead most folks stay in line because they don't want the punishment. So the out come of this case will affect others decisions on their future hunts. A slap on the wrist makes it worth it to pull the trigger. The book thrown at you and a cell mate named Bubba might be the difference to some.

DZ
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom