Posts: 2,514
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
This came out in todays Deseret News. I am usually very pro DWR in my postings here, but this article bothers me some. This might explain why it is such a struggle to get adequate funding from the legislature every session.
[url "http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,620152543,00.html"][#22229c]http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,620152543,00.html[/#22229c][/url]
[signature]
Posts: 233
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
I have always had a bit of sketchy feelings about most conservation officers. Many of them do not understand how they come off to people and they believe EVERYONE they come across has somehow broken the law and they are going to find out how. I have been in a pickup that got pulled over off a freeway while on a hunting trip. I have had BLM officers try to kick me off of private property while metal detecting (how is it the BLM officers charged with patrolling the west desert not know where the BLM vs. Privat land is.), lucky we had maps to prove where we were.
I am always real cautious as to my wereabouts and on the look out. Even if you are not breaking the law you are still guilty till they leave you alone. I understand that they are trying to police a group of people who are many times armed but there is no need to behave the way many of them do. Often times the attitude is "Go ahead make my day".
[signature]
Posts: 574
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
You have a right to prospect on BLM land. As long as you are not doing large disturbances. My dad once got harressed when he was out prospecting and had a gun in the truck. Just happened to be during the bow hunt. The officer could not understand the concept that my dat had a right to have said gun. Did'nt understand that rule about not having a gun on the bow hunt only applied to bow hunters. My dad had to get a sherriff to explain the law to the DWR officer.
On another note stupid rules that the dwr comes up with. For example "when measuring a fish pinch the tail together. If I going to release a fish I want to handle it as little as possible, not squeeze the s#%t out of it. I think they make ememies when they give a ticket to someone for keeping a 14 1/2 in cutt at the Berry. Opps 14 1/2 plus tail pinch of 1/2 to full inch and said fish is now a violation.[mad] The irony of this rule is that a 21 inch fish I can squeeze and it easily extends to 22 plus inches. I thought the idea of the slot was to keep some bigger fish in the water. With the squeeze the upper end of the slot is actually smaller.
[signature]
Posts: 233
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
Well as far as prospecting goes we were shooting coins at a ghost town. THAT is illegal on BLM property. You can't pick up any manmade artifact BLA BLA BLA. Again one of those stupid rules that is a knee jerk reaction to pot hunters and vandals. I don't want to get too far off the fishing topic so I will just stop there.
They don't give one inch or have any lieniency for people just out enjoying the outdoors. If someone is making a effort to measure their fish and releasing the ones they are supposed to don't give them a bunch of crap about it. Now if someone is overfishing bust their butts. I have a second pole license and if I have my 4 year olds in the boat I don't put out anymore than 2 poles cause I am not real sure they would be able to real in some of the fish at willard, I don't want to appear to be fishing with more than my allotted number of poles. I try real hard not to appear to be "using" my kids as a reason to fish with extra poles. Heck I could fish with more poles than my little hands could handle.
I am sure if we polled this group of people here there would be a DWR stupid rules list several pages long. The DWR doesn't have to explain much you are just supposed to follow the rules.
[signature]
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
15
Holy crap...what is this the bitch and moan because you got caught breaking the law thread? Laws are in place for good reasons...just because you don't understand them, does not mean they are stupid. Of course the DWR shouldn't be lenient to people who break the law...they are protecting a resource that some of us value (others obviously don't). Heck, with attitudes like the ones above, I wouldn't blame any CO for being belligerent...
[signature]
Posts: 180
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
0
Obviously, you've never had a run in with a CO. Wait until you, an honest sportsman trying your best to obey all rules, runs onto a CO who wants to stick it to you. My father-in-law almost ended up in jail and with a $10K fine for poaching a trophy elk. Only problem is, he didn't do it. He unluckily happened to drive down a road near where the poaching had taken place. Someone reported seeing his truck in the area, they matched his truck tire tred to those found on the road near the kill and they figured that was all they needed to lock up an innocent man. In the end, they finally dropped the case, but their little game cost him thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Just last weekend, I went Elk hunting with my Dad. He had a permit, I did not. I wanted to take my shotgun to shoot the rabbits and other small game we often see in the area. I carefully read the entire proclamation to see if this would be in any way prohibited. I could not find anything prohibiting it, especially since it says that the rule that you can't have a rifle on a bow/muzzleloader hunt is exempted for those holding a valid upland game permit or a concealed weapon permit, and i had both. Long story short, a game warden stops us and tells me I'm in violation. I grabbed the proclamation and asked him to tell me where it said any such thing. He couldn't, of course, but still harrassed us for an hour and a half before finally letting us go because he couldn't find any other reason to cite us (believe me, he tried).
I never want to see someone who intentionaly breaks the rules go free, BUT there is definitely a need for more common sense among certian COs.
[signature]
Posts: 194
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation:
0
yeah right, when you need them they can't be found (unless you're up at Strawberry, their favorite and easiest place to bust people). When you are fishing in the middle of BFE and someone's drowning worms on the provo they won't show up for four hours and wonder where the law breakers are. I don't break the law but still can't stand the majority of the CO officers I've met.
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
15
[reply]
Just last weekend, I went Elk hunting with my Dad. He had a permit, I did not. I wanted to take my shotgun to shoot the rabbits and other small game we often see in the area. [/reply]
Sounds like you should have used more common sense too...shooting your shotgun where your dad was trying to elk hunt probably ruined his hunt!
[signature]
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
15
[reply]
I never want to see someone who intentionaly breaks the rules go free, BUT there is definitely a need for more common sense among certian COs.[/reply]
How about unintentionally? I don't know...I can see it now, "Sorry, officer, I didn't mean to shoot that cow elk...it was an accident." Or, "Sorry, officer, I didn't know that was the law...I won't break it again."
It's no wonder COs are belligerent...there is a prevailing attitude out there "I hate all the COs I have ever met!" Or, "The laws are stupid." Or, "They should be more lenient to those of who us who break the law but don't do it intentionally." Or, "They shouldn't punish us that are out there just enjoying the good ol' outdoors." What a joke. Maybe the next time a highway patrolman pulls over someone suspected of drug trafficking the patrolman should just politely ask for the drugs and believe the suspect when he says he doesn't have any. Afterall, isn't that what you guys are asking?
[signature]
Posts: 194
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation:
0
too easy wormandbobber, too easy indeed. I'll pass on this slaying and let fishhungry lay the smackdown.
[signature]
Posts: 180
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
0
One Spike Elk Tag, one spike elk hanging in the garage . . . but thanks for playing!
REALLY, Wormandbobber, if you want to argue the point, leave out the extremes. No one here would support the ridiculous scenarious you propose. For a fair-minded officer, there is little difficulty blending strict enforcement when necessary, with common sense and leniency when appropriate. I know several policeman, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials who do it very well.
[signature]
Posts: 194
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation:
0
leave wormandbobber alone, his dad is a CO officer and those ridiculous tickets they give out pay for his XBox games and ice cream cones from the drugstore.
[signature]
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
15
Extremes...how are they extreme? You said that your father in law was being investigated for possibly poaching an elk because his truck was seen in the area and his tire tracks were found near the animal. It sounds to me like the CO had very good reason to investigate him. Would you rather the CO just simply say, "Oh, you didn't shoot the elk...I believe you."? That would be ridiculous and not using common sense...but, that is exactly what you imply. A good CO would have gone on the evidence at hand and investigated your father in law. You claim he didn't do it; should I just take your word for it because you say it is so? You are only giving one side of what sounds like a very complicated story. I would like to hear the CO's side...I am sure it would be much different.
[signature]
Posts: 194
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation:
0
the only problem with your memory wormandbobber is that it is very selective, he wasn't investigated as much as he was ticketed and forced to pay lawyer fees to prove it wasn't him. If he had done it I'm sure the elk would have surfaced and he would have a major fine on his hands. The only problem sounds like they wrote the ticket without doing the investigation, he had to prove he was not guilty instead of them proving he was.
[signature]
Posts: 574
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
Worm and bobber you just like the Dwr officer harresing my dad don't understand we had broke no laws. HE DID"NT UNDERSTAND HIS OWN DEPARTMENTS LAWS!
[signature]
Posts: 180
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
0
I'm sure the rest of the board doesn't want to read a long post of you and me bantering back and forth, so this is my final word.
1. The extreme part was not that they "investigated." I commend them for that. The extreme part was that they charged and prosecuted him with no evidence other than the fact that he drove through the general area, which he freely admited from the beginning. He had never stepped out of his truck that morning, which his lawyer was able to prove, his gun had never been fired, which he was able to prove, and (what finally let to dismissal of the case) at the last minute, they got lab reports back that plastic fragments at the scene came from a plastic tipped bullet, which my dad had none of when he was stopped that morning and they could find no evidence that he had purchased any such bullets. Alot of sportsman's money wasted on prosecuting a case that any first year lawyer could tell you was weak on its face.
2. Will you be smiling and pontificating in like manner if you are personally accused of something you didn't do, an overzealous officer pushes the case to court, and you have to cash out your IRAs to pay your legal fees for his pet project? I'm sure you'll gladly take one for the team.
3. Your logic is broken. You fail to address the actual points I am making. I did not say that my Father-In-Law's case was extreme, although it certainly was, I said that your scenarios of pating drug dealers on the back is extreme. Saying that I, or anyone else, thinks that offenses shouldn't be investigated in the name of being "nice" is extreme. Letting someone go because they said "I didn't mean to shoot that cow elk" is extreme. Need I go on?
4. No one here is arguing for any of the ridiculous scenarious you present. They are arguing for a more reasonable approach that blends enforcement with common sense. By definition, all of your silly situations violate "common sense" and so we who argue for improvement would certainly want COs to enforce the law in those situations.
5. Ideally, there should be good rapport between any enforcement official and those who genuinely strive to be law-abiding. A lack of such rapport hurts us all. There will be more cooperation, more public observation and reporting, and more effective use of OUR resources if the existing trend can be reversed.
[signature]
Posts: 574
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
Wormandbobber,
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty. If they had done a complete investigation they would have maybe found some blood in the truck. Or some elk at his house that dna matched the remains of the poached elk. Just because someone saw your truck near a poached elk, your guilty. We need more goverment workers like you.[mad] Then it will be just like communist China. If a comrade says your guilty, Firing squad![pirate]
Lighten up, it is not just us. The article quotes DWR employees that are concerned about this problem they have created. When someone is blatantly breaking the law and gets caught with a poached elk or two limits of fish, throw the book at them. But all too often you are treated like a law breaker from the get go.
[signature]
Posts: 2,993
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation:
0
[reply]
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty.
too often you are treated like a law breaker from the get go. [/reply]
Amen to that brother!
[signature]
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
15
The bottom line is this: COs have a job where they must deal with belligerent people on a daily basis. Many of these people wield high-powered rifles and other weapons that are very dangerous. These very same people look at COs as "people they just can't stand" as already noted in this thread. They are oft criticized for doing their jobs, enforcing laws, and sometimes even arresting individuals suspected of committing a crime. A COs job is not to determine guilt or innocence; it is his/her job to enforce the law and when the law is suspected to be broken to gather evidence that suggests guilt and present it. Judging from the responses above, all of you are very well informed of the elk case and know all the details. Are you all related...or just very good friends? Again, I would love to hear the other side of the story.
I truly sickens me to see so many people nonsupportive of those who are out protecting our resources as hunters and fishers. What sickens me even more is that these people suggest that those breaking the law--whatever law it may be--should somehow not be held accountable for breaking laws and the law enforcement officers should be lenient. I don't care if the fish is one inch over the legal limit, if it is kept, the person is guilty of breaking the law and should be punished.
What isn't mentioned about the article is that the idea of putting the DWR law enforcement arm into agriculture is an idea presented by a politician, Tom Hatch, who was himself involved in a poaching case. it also does not mention that the DWR enforcement budget was cut by the same legislator. It sounds to me that Hatch still harbors ill-feelings about being caught poaching and is trying his damnedest at getting even. But, of course, that side of the story is not mentioned in the article...is it?
[signature]
Posts: 194
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation:
0
no we aren't related we just have better reading and listening skills than you obviously. nobody here is advocating breaking the law or poaching, we are obviously fed up with dealing with CO's with a chip on their shoulders. If you haven't dealt with a warden that has played hard A@# then good for you but when their own ranks start complaining, then something is wrong.
[signature]
|
