18 replies [Last post]
Offline
Joined: 01/10/2003
Posts: 274
Rancher refuses rescuers......2 bulls die

I can understand bad blood. But to look at someones actions show what the person is like. To let an animal die needlessly is BS. If you can help out then do. I guess I was raised differently. I have had bad blood with police officers in my town when I was younger but now I dont care. Have even helped out a few. The person you are talking about that said he would of done it differently was the guys that found them and called DNR or F&G. If he had such the big problem why after the bulls died did he let them on his property. He didnt have to let them on there. They could of laid there and he could of picked them up legally. Well if he was in Idaho he could be cause if they died of natural causes then you can take the horns.
But I just say to each his own.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Rancher refuses rescuers......2 bulls die
supersider34 wrote:
The person you are talking about that said he would of done it differently was the guys that found them and called DNR or F&G.

Oh, yup, your right.

supersider34 wrote:
If he had such the big problem why after the bulls died did he let them on his property.

That is what I'd like to know too. It makes him look brazenly callus, but at the same time it is really odd. I mean if you could ride out the protesting for 3 days, why then let them on, what difference does it make? Weird.

Offline
Location: Southeast Washington State
Joined: 09/28/2004
Posts: 117
Rancher refuses rescuers......2 bulls die

My guess is he didn't want the dead elk rotting on his property, and he can't claim them unless he tags them, so he had to let them on to his property to retrieve the dead carcasses after his point was made. In this state anyways, landowners don't have the privilege of processing big game that have expired on their property unless they tag the animal with a valid big game tag and only then during hunting season. If the same rules apply there, then he was avoiding prosecution for poaching by letting them come and get the carcasses.

My guess also is that he has been complaining about elk depredating his property for some time, and the F&G have not allowed anyone to hunt the elk out of season on depredation permits, and they are likewise not reimbursing him for his losses, so when two elk get into some trouble on his property and F&G want to come and put them down, he tells them the same thing they've been telling him for years, a simple no. That's just one scenario full of conjecture, but based on a lot of cases I've seen up my way. Only recently have local farmers begun to get compensation for big game crop and property damage here. Up north, near Spokane, hay farmers have been really complaining about the damage done to their bailed hay in their barns by roving bands of turkeys. Thus far, none of them have been recompensed for loss. I can tell you, once a flock has gotten into the bails and torn them up and defecated in them, livestock will not eat it. Here, the F&Gs response was to open up a fall turkey season for one week at the end of September. Very few hunters took part, which means that most likely next year we will have two very robust turkey seasons (spring and fall) up north. Maybe they'll even let us take more than one at a time.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
Rancher refuses rescuers......2 bulls die

To me bottomline is regardless of whether or not his beef with Nevada, Utah and Idaho is legit, which I seriously doubt it is, there is a right way and a wrong way to handle things. My mama always taught me 2 wrongs do not equal a right. To let animals suffer for days is flat out wrong and there is no excuse for it in a case like this.

Bitty guys like this are complicated fellows. I have the same type of guys in my home town of only 500 people. Some of the guys there were angry when they made water a public utility. Back when I was growing up water was distributed by a company and to get water rights you had to buy a water share from the company. If you had fields to irrigate then you better buy 2 or 3 shares. Even with the shares there was still a monthly charge so the company could do maintenance. But the company could no longer keep up with the growth of the town. It was necessary for the county to take over to be able to provide water to everyone.

But there were a few older gentlemen that were well liked had most of the money and land in town. But once they made it a public utility and disolved the water company these guys cried foul, they tried to sue everyone and their dog about it and it literally tore the town apart.

Their arguement\beef? They said they bought those water shares for $500 a piece and should get their $500 back. It was explained to them that the company was disolving, it was not being bought, traded or anything else. And they were still going to get uninterrupted water service and at no more cost than they were already paying a month. In other words they would notice absolutely no difference in their water service or cost to have it. But they were convinced they were getting swindled and someone was pocketing their money. Everyone in town knew this was ludicrous as the $500 that everyone paid was long since spent on maintenance and repairs. No one could figure out if they had just lost their minds or what but they tried to sue anyone and everyone in town that had anthing to do with the town water company. The funny thing was the company was non-profit company and the entire board for the water company including the president was all on a volunteer basis. They never made a cent.

I've met guys like him before. He's got a beef and ain't anyone, any how gonna tell him he's wrong and he'd burn down the state capitol to prove his point.

Offline
Location: Southeast Washington State
Joined: 09/28/2004
Posts: 117
Rancher refuses rescuers......2 bulls die

Well, I'd bet burning down the capitol isn't a new idea for many folks, especially anyone with a fair chunk of land.

It would be nice if we could all see the bigger picture about things. If we had even a portion the foresight that the founding fathers had, half the world would be USA by now. Unfortunately, most politicians are only really good at one thing, and that is campaigning. The rest of the time, they need to be spoon fed information in order to make any kind of decision. Thus, we get stuck with laws and regulations that don't work for many of us.

It is a tough scale to balance the interests of the public against the rights of the property owner. Obviously, everyone involved in this situation is within their rights and no one is breaking any rules. They may all be asses, but they are functioning within whatever scheme some knotheads back at the capitol thought sounded good at the time. If this was the only legal means that Bedke had to make his point, it sucks, but what else is he going to do? Would it have been better to have let someone else come on his land and do something on it he isn't allowed to do himself? Letting the F&G boys put em down wouldn't have changed the outcome none. The elk would've died either way, and you can be sure that the meat wasn't wasted. As for the suffering? That's part of life I reckon, and you can be sure that this ain't the first time a pair of bulls expired fighting for a herd of cows.

Offline
Location: Southeast Washington State
Joined: 09/28/2004
Posts: 117
Rancher refuses rescuers......2 bulls die

After reading all the articles that are on the internet about this issue, it appears that one of the F&G boys understands why things went down the way they did.

I guess that Bedke's point is that if his cattle have to suffer and die because the govt won't let him range them on public land during a drought for no good reason, (and just because they said so is not a good reason), then letting a couple elk die on his land seems just as reasonable. It would be hard to take knowing that animals are dying while just a few miles away there's water they can't get to just going to waste for no other reason than policy.

Truly a no-win situation, especially for the elk.

Offline
Location: nw oregon
Joined: 10/29/2004
Posts: 4
Rancher refuses rescuers......2 bulls die

Sounds like that rancher is a real dick.

Offline
Location: nw oregon
Joined: 10/29/2004
Posts: 4
Rancher refuses rescuers......2 bulls die

Sounds like that rancher is a real dick.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
The Bureaucrat and the RancherWhelland004/15/2008 09:01 am
Leaving after work.SoCoKHntr910/06/2008 16:32 pm
Wisconsin Cheap elk hunts big BULLSwildlife050011/13/2009 16:59 pm
Not good newsDon Fischer5609/14/2006 14:02 pm
Looking for bullssnyper1812/01/2010 06:39 am