Rancher charged in attempted stealing of elk horns from helicopter hunters

[HairyScandinavian]

I get the sentiment, but that won't hold up. If I overpay $1,000 for a $100 pair of boots it doesn't make the boots more valuable. The cost of the hunt, helicopter, tag, etc. has nothing to do with the objective value of the antlers.

I think fair market comparison standards would apply and come in to play. You could measure the rack and get 10 quotes from landowners in the area for trophy fees and average them out, those trophy fees wouldn't include tags and such. No matter how you slice it it'll far exceed $1000 so if $1k is the line for felony it's well above that.

 

[180ls1]

Why not the difference in what he charges for a cow hunt vs a bull hunt?

 

[HairyScandinavian]

Why not the difference in what he charges for a cow hunt vs a bull hunt?

That's the easy button right there and hard to argue against because the only difference would be antlers.

 

[Lawnboi]

The value is easy to determine. What would the state of Wyoming charge you for it if you stole it from them without permission (tag)?

 

[Jethro]

What the rancher charges for an outfitted hunt is irrelevant. So is the fact that he is a rancher. Suppose he was a plumber.

Can buy an elk mount off eBay for as low as $500.

 

[Hunter26]

Frankly lots of good conversation. On a bigger level I can see both sides. Private land owners controlling access to public land because they own the land around it. In my opinion they shouldn't be forced by the government to give up land or allow access across their private land. On the flip side we all own the public land and seems kind of crazy that we wouldn't have access. However, if it is legal for us to use a helicopter then I guess technically we do have access. I don't mind threads like this because I do think it brings this topic to light more and creates conversation that can maybe move us forward.

 

[BuckSmasher]

Frankly lots of good conversation. On a bigger level I can see both sides. Private land owners controlling access to public land because they own the land around it. In my opinion they shouldn't be forced by the government to give up land or allow access across their private land. On the flip side we all own the public land and seems kind of crazy that we wouldn't have access. However, if it is legal for us to use a helicopter then I guess technically we do have access. I don't mind threads like this because I do think it brings this topic to light more and creates conversation that can maybe move us forward.

Why do you feel the need to 'see both sides'?

There ARE two sides to this story. One is clearly in the wrong and one isn't. Very clear.

 

[Muledeerfanatic]

I have hunted that general area several times and the ranchers there in general are a pain in the ass
Think they own everything
But they have been dealing with morons for a long time
Casper is just down the road

 

[mt terry d]

Very easy to figure this out, how much does that landowner charge for a bull Elk hunt? $10k maybe?

That's with no guarantee. What's he charge for guaranteed 100% success ?

 

[CAElkhunter]

two wrongs don't make a right.....just because you are a major landowner doesn't make you king.
If as someone said the hunters were dirt bags it doesn't make what the rancher did right. Despite what
ranchers in the Big West want to think Non Resident hunters contribute a great amount of $$ to the economy
of the western states. You kick us out and you have to pay more.........

 

[7RemMag]

Despite what ranchers in the Big West want to think Non Resident hunters contribute a great amount of $$ to the economy
of the western states. You kick us out and you have to pay more.........

Does where the hunters/rancher are from really matter? I for one don’t care if they’re from Timbuktu. Resident or not, If they were legally accessing the public land and lawfully harvested the bull, he broke the law. In fact, even if the hunters UNLAWFULLY took the animal, it’s not his to keep. At least not in any state I’ve resided in.

The landowner in this case made a conscious decision to pull a really dirtbag move. Fortunately he got caught red handed and on camera. The man deserves what he got and then some. Hopefully this scenario deters an individual or two from doing this in the future.

However, if there’s one thing I know about greedy, selfish individuals such as this particular dirtbag, it’s that they’re always finding new and inventive ways to be lousy human beings. It’s in their nature.

 

[AHayes111]

I get the sentiment, but that won't hold up. If I overpay $1,000 for a $100 pair of boots it doesn't make the boots more valuable. The cost of the hunt, helicopter, tag, etc. has nothing to do with the objective value of the antlers.

Still the landowner was in the wrong. He should have just gone and talked to the hunters and made sure they were legal and then call a game warden if he thought something was wrong. Instead he went for bullying and intimidation and got caught red handed. I don't want his livelihood destroyed or anything to happen to him beyond the requirements of the law and the law shouldn't be twisted to make more of this than it is. If he can take his punishment and move forward with different behavior then good for him. If his prosecution helps other landowners to learn not to repeat his mistake then good for everyone.

I agree, would be hard to make an over 1,000 dollar value hold up in court. The landowner is selling far more than just an elk head. The hunter is paying for the experience of the hunt. Once he takes the elk head home, he may value the head at far more than a grand, but a criminal court is going to go with the value he would get if he sold the head and that is going to be poundage unless the bull is big enough for the collectors market.
I am no lawyer, but maybe the hunter has a civil case for the value of the hunt.
I would have handled the situation just as you said the landowner should have. Ask a few questions in a non confronting way and if you suspect laws were broken, let the warden sort it out.