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.

 

[velvet muley]

I know the rancher well. The Delap family are good people and a generational ranch family not move in big money and there is more to this story. Those guys that flew in there are shit heads. They got caught trespassing on my brother laws ranch shed hunting, they snuck in, in the fog. The got to walk with a warning. The whole community knows they are outlaws. So when Bret saw them it was an easy assumption. The whole damn area is pissed off. This isnt like the corner crossing case. This is severely gonna damage hunter landowner relationships in that whole region. I was just down there and alot ranchers are gonna pull public access if he gets convicted. Including about 30,000 acres in my family. I have no skin in this. But this is deeper than Bret just hiding an elk and making a point.

This make no sense at all. The guys were clearly in there legally and when the ranch owner got caught he clearly stated he stole the head because he didn't want them hunting on the public land.

Saying he assumed they were trespassing is nothing but a cop out. He wants the public land exclusively to himself so he can make money by charging hunters to hunt it.

If charging a land owner for stealing someone's elk off public land damages land owner/hunter relations than those land owners should do some serious self reflection.

This boils down to greed and a lack of character, he wants to own something that isn't his to own.

 

[omicron1792]

I have read nothing about the story except what has been posted.

The landowner stealing the head was stupid

That said, If you owned land that landlocked some public, then you found someone hunting on that public, 99.9% of the time they trespassed onto that land. That is something the landowners deal with on a daily basis. Landowner was wrong this time, and again was stupid to steal the head. But come on. If you caught some people out there and they said “I helicoptered in. I didn’t trespass.” You would also say they were FOS.

He should have just called the warden and police.

 

[velvet muley]

I have read nothing about the story except what has been posted.

The landowner stealing the head was stupid

That said, If you owned land that landlocked some public, then you found someone hunting on that public, 99.9% of the time they trespassed onto that land. That is something the landowners deal with on a daily basis. Landowner was wrong this time, and again was stupid to steal the head. But come on. If you caught some people out there and they said “I helicoptered in. I didn’t trespass.” You would also say they were FOS.

He should have just called the warden and police.

Sorry but you're wrong, the land owner new they helicoptered in and stated he was upset about it, then took the head to discourage them from doing it again.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

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.

I like what the one poster said about the price difference between a Cow hunt and a Bull hunt. If LO charges $500 for a cow hunt and $10k for a Bull hunt then the head is $9500. With the Cow the experience and all that is the same.