Hazing Elk off of Public Land

[Tkaldahl2000]

I had really hope that I was just going to get responses that these were just exagerations by disgruntled people. I will have to report to work by the 23rd of August next year, but I will definitely be camped out for a week until then to try to get evidence. I'll be able to go back on the weekends as well, but I would be very surprised if they were that brazen. I agree that it is a theft of public property, not to mention wildlife harassment. I don't understand the mindset of people who don't want others to have something even if they have a lot of it.

 

[Weedkillincat]

Is that the southern edge of the Snowies north of Ryegate? I know there are elk along the Musselshell west of Ryegate/Barber that hang out in the timber and rarely ever come out. The only time that I have seen any evidence of elk was a few years ago when they had hit some big round bales in some state land and the numerous tracks in the snow.

 

[Weedkillincat]

Also I'm pretty sure the N Bar has property in the Ryegate area...

 

[tarheel]

Despicable! They couldn't just be fair about it. On a similar note I was hunting with a party in the late 80's just below the WY/CO border near the North Platte. CO season came in on Saturday so we had hunted our chosen areas the first two days and then positioned ourselves along a ridge not too far from the state line. The WY season began on Monday and we were hoping to intercept some of the elk coming out of WY when the war started there, but WY Game and Fish had a different idea and they came skimming the treetops along the state line first thing with a surplus Huey chopper in an effort to bust up a large herd and drive them away from CO. It worked too though there were 4 killed by a group about 1/4 - 1/2 mile down the line from us. Our group of six only managed two elk that season.

 

[JoseCuervo]

What is the regulation or law that is being broken?

 

[James Riley]

What is the regulation or law that is being broken?

I don't have the citations but it is illegal to interfere with hunters (in CO) and to harass wildlife. I would bet that any prosecutor not on the take could come up with more, especially with respect to the chopper, AGLs, etc.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I don't have the citations but it is illegal to interfere with hunters (in CO) and to harass wildlife. I would bet that any prosecutor not on the take could come up with more, especially with respect to the chopper, AGLs, etc.

Was the OP being "interfered" with as a hunter, or did all this happen a week before he was a "hunter"?


AGL is an FAA regulation, and unless people are in the area, you can fly as close to the ground as you want.

I love flying with sage air freshener.


Would flying "harass" wildlife more than driving in the same area?


I am not sure what a prosecutor would charge with.

 

[James Riley]

Was the OP being "interfered" with as a hunter, or did all this happen a week before he was a "hunter"?


AGL is an FAA regulation, and unless people are in the area, you can fly as close to the ground as you want.

I love flying with sage air freshener.


Would flying "harass" wildlife more than driving in the same area?


I am not sure what a prosecutor would charge with.

I already stated I don't have the citations. I have not pulled the citation, read the provision or determined the elements so I can't say how the interference-with-hunters charge would work; specifically regards the timing (a week before season?). Let's say PETA went out and hazed an elk herd into a National Park, or onto a private ranch owned by a PETA person to protect the elk. Since the law is designed to prevent people from interfering with hunters, I'd say a case could be made, regardless of the timing. However, without reading the relevent provision, I don't know for sure.

I think hazing wildlife from one area to another would be more than driving in the same area, unless the driving was also hazing wildlife from one area to another; in which case I would charge for that too. I think if there are people in the area, hunting or not, the FAA would frown on you buzzing your sage. The FAA has authority also.

Here's the deal, Jose, if I were the prosecutor with jurisdiction, and a complaint, with evidence, was brought to me based upon the OP, I would expect the preferred charges of law enforcement to provide the relevant citations (F&G, County Mountie, FAA, etc.). Since I am not a prosecutor with jurisdiction, I'll go dig them up for you but first I'll need a retainer of $1,500.00 to work against at $350.00 per hour; something a prosecutor would not need. If I can't find at least four violations, I will refund your money in full. I am not practicing law here, just providing you with research services to aid in your complaint.

I found this for free and could definitely bring charges under it, even if the actions were a week before season: http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?223171-MT-Hunter-Harassment-Law

 

[Gerald Martin]

If documentation showed someone flying over wildlife and harassing/hazing them, I'm pretty sure a prosecutor could make wildlife harassment charges stick. Only problem is it's probably only a couple hundred dollar fine.

 

[MTGomer]

What is the regulation or law that is being broken?

Harassment of wildlife is illegal.

 

[SFC B]

To make it hurt to these landowners serious property forfeitures, loss of LO tags, revocation of outfitting/guiding licenses and actual criminal penalties would all be steps in the right direction. On the edge of the Flat Tops where I hunt a few ranches engage in similar activities. In a GOOD year all they do is have their ranch hands continuously patrol their fence lines in trucks and UTVs to keep elk on the ranches. In a BAD year they send folks out on horseback to herd them down to begin with. Three years ago a ranch adjacent to public where we are killed +-20 elk in less than 5 minutes. One of my buddies watched from a ridgeline....they had hunters lined up along a fence and they kept killing as the herd was pushed down the line. We reported it but heard nothing more about it. Very disheartening.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Harassment of wildlife is illegal.

Harassing wildlife is illegal, but flinging bullets at them is legal?

Do you have a cite for the law that makes it illegal?

In Idaho, the only reference to harassing is for dogs.



https://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title36/T36CH11SECT36-1101.htm

TITLE 36
FISH AND GAME
CHAPTER 11
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS AND BIRDS
36-1101. TAKING OF WILDLIFE UNLAWFUL EXCEPT BY STATUTE OR COMMISSION RULE OR PROCLAMATION

Regulation of Dogs.
(A) No person shall make use of a dog for the purpose of pursuing, taking or killing any of the big game animals of this state except as otherwise provided by rules of the commission.
(B) Any person who is the owner of, or in possession of, or who harbors any dog found running at large and which is actively tracking, pursuing, harassing or attacking, or which injures or kills deer or any other big game animal within this state shall be guilty as provided in section 36-1401(a)1.(F), Idaho Code. It shall be no defense that such dog or dogs were pursuing said big game animals without the aid or direction of the owner, possessor, or harborer.
(C) Any dog found running at large and which is actively tracking, pursuing, harassing, attacking or killing deer or any other big game animal may be destroyed without criminal or civil liability by the director, or any peace officer, or other persons authorized to enforce the Idaho fish and game laws.

Here is the Montana Code on Harassment:

87-6-215. Harassment. (1) (a) A person may not:
(i) intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing by another;
(ii) with intent to prevent or hinder its lawful taking or its capture, disturb a wild animal or engage in an activity or place in its way any object or substance that will tend to disturb or otherwise affect the behavior of a wild animal; or
(iii) disturb an individual engaged in the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing with intent to prevent the taking of the animal or the capture of the fish.
(b) This subsection (1) does not:
(i) prohibit a landowner or lessee from taking reasonable measures to prevent imminent danger to domestic livestock and equipment; or
(ii) prohibit or curtail normal landowner operations or lawful uses of water.
(2) A person convicted of or who forfeits bond or bail after being charged with a violation of this section shall be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned for not more than 30 days, or both. In addition, the person may be subject to forfeiture of any current hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued by this state and the privilege to hunt, fish, and trap in this state or to use state lands, as defined in 77-1-101, for recreational purposes for a period of time set by the court.
(3) A person convicted of or who forfeits bond or bail after being charged with a second or subsequent violation of this section within 5 years shall be fined not less than $500 or more than $1,000 or be imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both. In addition, the person shall forfeit any current hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued by this state and the privilege to hunt, fish, and trap in this state for 24 months from the date of conviction or forfeiture of bond or bail unless the court imposes a longer period.
(4) A court of general jurisdiction may enjoin conduct in violation of this section upon petition by a person affected or who reasonably may be affected by that conduct and upon a showing that the conduct is threatened or that it has occurred on a particular premises in the past and that it is not unreasonable to expect that under similar circumstances it will be repeated.
(5) As used in this section:
(a) "fishing" means the lawful means of fishing as described in 87-6-501;
(b) "taking" means the pursuit, hunting, trapping, shooting, or killing of a wild animal on land upon which the affected person has the right or privilege to pursue, hunt, trap, shoot, or kill the wild animal; and
(c) "wild animal" means a game animal, migratory game bird, upland game bird, fur-bearing animal, predatory animal, or fish.

Not sure how flying is different than driving, as it relates to "disturb or otherwise affect the behavior of a wild animal"..... Both activities will cause animals to move.



Wyoming says you can't hunt from the plane....

(a) No person shall harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, or kill any Wyoming wildlife except predatory animals with, from, or by use of any aircraft, automotive vehicle, trailer, motor-propelled wheeled vehicle, or vehicle designed for travel over snow. No person shall use any aircraft, to aid in the taking of any Wyoming wildlife, except predatory animals, whether by spotting or locating the wildlife, communicating with any person attempting to take the wildlife, or by providing other aid to any person taking the wildlife. Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the use of any aircraft by governmental agencies, their employees, contractors or designees performing any lawful duties. The commission may exempt handicapped hunters from any provision of this subsection.

But treats airplanes the same as cars and ATVs, and snowmobiles.

Mostly, Wyoming is worried about dogs....

23-3-109. Use of dogs; dogs injuring big or trophy game animals may be killed; citation of owners of dogs harassing game animals; penalties.



(a) No person shall use any dog to hunt, run or harass any big or trophy game animal, protected animal or furbearing animal except as otherwise provided by this act. The commission shall regulate the use of dogs to take mountain lions and bobcats during hunting or trapping seasons.



(b) In cases where big game animals have been injured or are being threatened with immediate injury by dogs, a peace officer may kill such dog or dogs where the vicious character of the dog or dogs is manifest. A peace officer killing a dog pursuant to this subsection shall make reasonable efforts to ascertain the ownership of the dog and inform the owner of the dog's death and the circumstances surrounding the death. Any peace officer who kills a dog pursuant to this subsection or has received a report that a dog has been killed shall file a report with his employing agency within twenty-four (24) hours of his action or of receiving a report.



(c) It is unlawful for any person to recklessly allow or direct a dog which he owns or is under his control to injure or threaten a big game animal with injury, whether or not the big game animal is actually injured by the dog, unless the dog was attempting to protect livestock or other property. A conviction under this subsection is punishable by a fine imposed for a low misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23-6-202(a)(v).

 

[noharleyyet]

How about hiking hippies doused with patchouli oil?

 

[hank4elk]

How about hiking hippies doused with patchouli oil?

LOL,my bro had them bust a stalk in the Sierra's this year on a nice buck.He got back when a forky walked thru camp & he took it legally outside camp and proceeded to drag it back to his camp and butcher there in front of them.

 

[hank4elk]

This hazing crap goes on all the time here in SW NM. I carry a camera all the time now to record it before I call it in.

 

[James Riley]

Harassing wildlife is illegal, but flinging bullets at them is legal?

Do you have a cite for the law that makes it illegal?

In Idaho, the only reference to harassing is for dogs.



https://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title36/T36CH11SECT36-1101.htm

TITLE 36
FISH AND GAME
CHAPTER 11
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS AND BIRDS
36-1101. TAKING OF WILDLIFE UNLAWFUL EXCEPT BY STATUTE OR COMMISSION RULE OR PROCLAMATION





Here is the Montana Code on Harassment:



Not sure how flying is different than driving, as it relates to "disturb or otherwise affect the behavior of a wild animal"..... Both activities will cause animals to move.



Wyoming says you can't hunt from the plane....



But treats airplanes the same as cars and ATVs, and snowmobiles.

Mostly, Wyoming is worried about dogs....

I'm not sure you understand. Or maybe I don't understand your point. Let my take another stab at it: It is the harassment that is illegal, not the method. So, if you are harassing with a car, an ATV, a snowmobile or an airplane or helicopter, therein lies the rub. You can't. They were. Or at least the alleged evidence from the OP would show they were. Therefor, flying is NOT different from driving: BOTH are illegal if harassing or driving the game or interfering with a hunt. I'm getting the impression that you fly and you think fliers are getting singled out here. They are not. They are getting treated exactly like cars, etc.: if you harass or disturb wildlife with them, it is the harassment or disturbing that is the crime.

Now, roads, in my opinion, suck. And yes, game prefers absence of roads (except maybe in deep snow). And really, it's not the roads themselves but, rather, the people who use them. But your average idiot driving down the road or flying over to smell the sage does not intend to harass or disturb wildlife. The OP had idiots who's intent was to disturb or harass the wildlife on public land, but not on private land (i.e. move them) and to do so knowing it would interfere with the lawful pursuit thereof on public land.

When firing bullets at game, the intent is to kill, not harass or disturb, and if it is done to interfere with a lawful hunt then you have a second offense. Throw in conspiracy to do so and you have a third. In the Colorado/Wyoming example, you have interstate crime. Like I said, anyone with an imagination could come up with more.

Hope that helps.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I'm not sure you understand. Or maybe I don't understand your point. Let my take another stab at it: It is the harassment that is illegal, not the method. So, if you are harassing with a car, an ATV, a snowmobile or an airplane or helicopter, therein lies the rub. You can't. They were. Or at least the alleged evidence from the OP would show they were. Therefor, flying is NOT different from driving: BOTH are illegal if harassing or driving the game or interfering with a hunt. I'm getting the impression that you fly and you think fliers are getting singled out here. They are not. They are getting treated exactly like cars, etc.: if you harass or disturb wildlife with them, it is the harassment or disturbing that is the crime.

Now, roads, in my opinion, suck. And yes, game prefers absence of roads (except maybe in deep snow). And really, it's not the roads themselves but, rather, the people who use them. But your average idiot driving down the road or flying over to smell the sage does not intend to harass or disturb wildlife. The OP had idiots who's intent was to disturb or harass the wildlife on public land, but not on private land (i.e. move them) and to do so knowing it would interfere with the lawful pursuit thereof on public land.

When firing bullets at game, the intent is to kill, not harass or disturb, and if it is done to interfere with a lawful hunt then you have a second offense. Throw in conspiracy to do so and you have a third. In the Colorado/Wyoming example, you have interstate crime. Like I said, anyone with an imagination could come up with more.

Hope that helps.

Hike up to the top of a ridge with a Antlered-only tag in your pocket, and kick a herd of cows out of a timber pocket. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife.

Walk thru another timber pocket, flush a grouse out of the trees. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife.

Step up to a creek, watch the trout flee. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife.

Go sit up on a ridge, and have your non-hunting buddy walk thru the bottom flushing deer. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife.

Put a couple of buddies at the end of a cornfield, and have some other guys push the pheasants out. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife.


You really want prosecutors pushing charges?

 

[MTGomer]

Jose,
drunk, illiterate, trolling, a combination or something else?


This stuff ain't that complicated.

INTENT. Use your googler if you need to.

It is illegal. You can and will and I know of people who have been cited and paid fines for it.

 

[James Riley]

Hike up to the top of a ridge with a Antlered-only tag in your pocket, and kick a herd of cows out of a timber pocket. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife.

Walk thru another timber pocket, flush a grouse out of the trees. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife.

Step up to a creek, watch the trout flee. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife.

Go sit up on a ridge, and have your non-hunting buddy walk thru the bottom flushing deer. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife.

Put a couple of buddies at the end of a cornfield, and have some other guys push the pheasants out. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife.


You really want prosecutors pushing charges?

I'm going to try this one more time. I want you to focus NOT on what happened, but focus instead on the mens rea, or mental state of the actor, okay? Can you do that? Again, if you were to interview the wildlife then yes, they might say "Hey, that asshat harassed us" or "He disturbed us." But that is only half of the equation, and that is not a crime by itself. Get it? The criminal part comes in on the intent of the actor. Was it the intent, goal, purpose, reason of the person to harass or disturb the wildlife or interfere with other hunters? If yes, then that is the crime. See the OP. It requires evidence, but the OP assumed intent. We are allowed to do that.

Thus, you can stomp around the woods, act like an idiot and harass and disturb all the wildlife if you are engaged in an otherwise legal activity, so long as you are not doing it intentionally, with the purpose of harassing them or disturbing them or messing with another hunter. See?


"Hike up to the top of a ridge with a Antlered-only tag in your pocket, and kick a herd of cows out of a timber pocket."

Was your intent to harass wildlife? Was your intent to interfere with another's hunt? If you answered yes to either question then yes, you committed a crime. But if you are just hiking to the top of a ridge with an Antlered-only tag in your pocked, and kick a herd of cows out of a timber pocket with the intent to hunt them, then no, you are not committing a crime.

"Walk thru another timber pocket, flush a grouse out of the trees."

Are you hunting, or is your goal to harass, disturb or interfere? You did NOT commit a crime if you are hunting or engaged in an otherwise legal activity even if you harassed wildlife as a by-product of your actions. Get it?

"Step up to a creek, watch the trout flee. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife."

No, you did not, unless it was your intent to harass or disturb them.

"Go sit up on a ridge, and have your non-hunting buddy walk thru the bottom flushing deer. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife."

No, you did not. Not if you are hunting them. You see, Jose, there is a difference between harass/disturb as part of a hunt or hike or smelling sage or whatever, and to harass/disturb or fk with another hunter or to fk with the wildlife generally.

"Put a couple of buddies at the end of a cornfield, and have some other guys push the pheasants out. You just committed a crime, as you harassed wildlife."

Not if you are hunting. Only if you are trying to mess with someone else's hunt or you're just messing with the wildlife because you are an asshole.

"You really want prosecutors pushing charges?"

If you are harassing or disturbing wildlife with the intent to interfere with someone else's hunt, or to haze them onto private property for the same reason, then yes. See OP. I hope they do push charges. I hope they win. And I hope the punishment is such as to prevent the perp from ever doing it again.

If you don't get the distinction with a relevant difference, then I will have to assume you are just harassing/disturbing (trolling) me; either that or you are mentally deficient. If you are mentally deficient, then you lack culpability, like the examples you list above. I won't prosecute anyone incapable of learning a lesson from the punishment. But if you are doing that just for the fun of it, then you are culpable and your punishment will be the deprivation of my august wisdom and ostracization. :W: I can laugh at myself, so if you are just fking with me, LOL! Good one, Jose. You had me going there. I actually thought you were incapable of seeing the difference. But then I thought, this guy is a pilot, who flies planes. He can't be that dumb. LOL! You got me.

But you can stop now. It's not worth it. You have so much to learn.

 

[smarandr]

What is the regulation or law that is being broken?

I assume this was in MT, but from the Idaho Big Game Regs page 95

It is unlawful to. . .Use any motorized vehicle to molest, stir up, rally or drive any game animal or game bird.

I agree, however, that the penalties for doing so are probably so light it's of little consequence.