Rancher charged in attempted stealing of elk horns from helicopter hunters

[ElDiablito]

 

[Coveyleader]

Sad thing is WY outfitters and such are now looking at making choppers harder to acquire, and use. Make no mistake, they aim to profit, and shut the every day dude down.

 

[338edge]

The rancher stole the head to "discourage" the hunters. They should have made him pack it back up the mountain to the spot he stole it from at gunpoint.

Wow dude

 

[rookieforever33]

Sitting back reading a thread with people fighting about rich people fighting about hunting in land locked public land, on a forum with guys regularly arguing about how non land locked public land is too crowded. Or has stories about outfitters that pay for outfitting rights on public land acting shady to, and bullying public land hunters. Maybe if we argue enough someone will get the great idea to shut down public land hunting to avoid all the fighting.

 

[wind gypsy]

If either of you, or anyone for that matter, say they’d be anything but bummed, miffed, pissed or mad.. if the same thing happened to you after countless decades of what seems like one of the most badass honey holes all to yourself or paying clients, I wouldn’t believe you.
But, legal is legal.

I've had private land adjacent to public that granted easier access to areas of public. I can confirm that I would be "bummed" if folks found a way to access land that I used to hunt without competition. But, I'd also know full well that public is public and have no ill will towards folks legally hunting it so long as they did not intentionally interfere with my hunts.

 

[KenLee]

I agree. If this elk was poached it would have been a felony due to the trophy potential. But then again he is an outfitter and we know how WY protects it's guides.

Wardens can't be bothered. "Call the Sheriff".

 

[KenLee]

Seems more akin to putting a fence around a public pool and using it for you and your friends, knowing damn well you didn't pay for it and that it belongs to everyone, then getting pissed when you found the public there

Oh, he paid extra because it was there and unhuntable to the public. Laws changed and rancher doesn't like it.

 

[Erict]

Correct me if I'm wrong....but "lawful taking of wildlife" is inclusive of collecting the dead animals.

Not the way I read it. The taking ends when the critter dies, which is part of the reason the hunter harassment charge cannot apply. I don't see proving "theft" as easy, especially if the antlers never left public land, but that's for others to decide.

"Wyoming Statutes Title 23. Game and Fish § 23-1-102. General definitions - (vii) “Take” means hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill, or possess, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill, or possess;"

 

[mt terry d]

It’s a damn shame, but it looks like they’ve got a solid defense against the hunter harassment charge based on Wyoming’s definition of “process”.

(a) No person shall with the intent to prevent or hinder the lawful taking of any wildlife: (i) Interfere with the lawful taking of or the process of lawfully taking any wildlife;

(h) As used in subsection (a) of this section, “process of lawfully taking” means travel, camping and other acts preparatory to taking wildlife if occurring on lands or water upon which the affected person may legally take the wildlife.

https://www.fishwildlife.org/law-research-library/law-categories/harassment-hunters-trappers-and-anglers/wyoming-harassment-statutes#:~:text=Wyoming's%20harassment%20laws%20for%20wildlife%20include:%20*,of%20up%20to%20$50%2C000%20for%20subsequent%20violations**

The process of lawfully taking wildlife includes packing out the meat and proof of sex even though it's not stated in this part.

 

[wind gypsy]

Not the way I read it. The taking ends when the critter dies, which is part of the reason the hunter harassment charge cannot apply. I don't see proving "theft" as easy, especially if the antlers never left public land, but that's for others to decide.

"Wyoming Statutes Title 23. Game and Fish § 23-1-102. General definitions - (vii) “Take” means hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill, or possess, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill, or possess;"

The "possess" part would apply, no? Rancher interfered with the lawful possession of the elk.

Edit to add: "(a) No person shall with the intent to prevent or hinder the lawful taking of any wildlife: (i) Interfere with the lawful taking" - He was on video basically saying his intent was to keep people out.. So not only did he interfere with the lawful taking by trying to prevent the hunters from possessing, he had an intent to prevent future "taking".

 

[Lawnboi]

Why not grand theft? The price Wyoming applies to trophy animals must only apply to non residents

 

[StupidLightweight]

Not the way I read it. The taking ends when the critter dies, which is part of the reason the hunter harassment charge cannot apply. I don't see proving "theft" as easy, especially if the antlers never left public land, but that's for others to decide.

"Wyoming Statutes Title 23. Game and Fish § 23-1-102. General definitions - (vii) “Take” means hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill, or possess, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill, or possess;"

You serious? Proving theft is easy when the dude admits to it on camera. That's the only reason he's been charged with misdemeanor theft. If video didn't exist, you wouldn't have heard of this incident. It would have been swept under the rug.

As for it being a misdemeanor instead of a felony offense, I see no justification for that beyond the prosecutor trying to get the rancher a sweetheart deal. Why? I wonder if a criminal conviction could jeopardize his public grazing rights on state and federal land. That's the only reason i can see for the prosecutor not starting at felony theft and then pleading it down to misdemeanor.

Last thing: As Wind Gypsy said, "possess" is a critical piece of the puzzle when defining "take." That should have been the ultimate justification for hunter harassment, but again, the goal for the state appears to be to minimize charges.

 

[KenLee]

Why not grand theft? The price Wyoming applies to trophy animals must only apply to non residents

The wardens don't want to work.
The wardens hate helicopter hunters.
Most wardens probably curry favor with the ranchers.

 

[Weldor]

We have a ton of so called Outfitters who use public land. I've seen some very unprofessional tactics , cutting off other hunters, blocking FS roads, use of spotters up on the rim and calling in locations, etc . the list just goes on and on. The pressure to perform for their clients must change their personalities. Any conviction would be nice to see, sometimes you need to pay the piper.

 

[Erict]

The process of lawfully taking wildlife includes packing out the meat and proof of sex even though it's not stated in this part.

Quote the section of the law or regulation where it it stated, because I don't believe it is. "TAKE" ends when the critter is dead, "POSSESS" begins when someone lays claim to it.

The "possess" part would apply, no? Rancher interfered with the lawful possession of the elk.

Edit to add: "(a) No person shall with the intent to prevent or hinder the lawful taking of any wildlife: (i) Interfere with the lawful taking" - He was on video basically saying his intent was to keep people out.. So not only did he interfere with the lawful taking by trying to prevent the hunters from possessing, he had an intent to prevent future "taking".

The law states "taking", not "possessing". Had he interfered before the critter was killed, it would appear that the harassment charge could apply.

Why not grand theft? The price Wyoming applies to trophy animals must only apply to non residents

Because the law applies to TAKE, not POSSESS.

23-3-102. Taking certain game animals without license or during a closed season prohibited.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, any person who takes any big or trophy game animal or gray wolf where classified as a trophy game animal without the proper license or authority is guilty of a high misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23-6-202(a)(ii). The taking of each animal is a separate offense.

 

[IdahoBeav]

The same guys that claim they wouldn't be upset if they were in the rancher's position, they probably get pissed when someone hunts the same public land drainage as them.

Theft is way out of line, but if you owned property that landlocked a public parcel, you would take full advantage of the fact that you had easy access to public land that is difficult or impossible for the public to access.

 

[wind gypsy]

The law states "taking", not "possessing". Had he interfered before the critter was killed, it would appear that the harassment charge could apply.



Because the law applies to TAKE, not POSSESS.

You posted the WY definition of Take and it includes the word possess.

Not the way I read it. The taking ends when the critter dies, which is part of the reason the hunter harassment charge cannot apply. I don't see proving "theft" as easy, especially if the antlers never left public land, but that's for others to decide.

"Wyoming Statutes Title 23. Game and Fish § 23-1-102. General definitions - (vii) “Take” means hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill, or possess, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill, or possess;"