Moffat County rancher Rodney Culverwell begins his jury trial Monday on charges of poaching elk on his property. He contends he was protecting his property. What do you believe the trial's outcome should be?

Convicted 283 votes

45.87%

Exonerated 334 votes

54.13%

617 total votes

Comments

grannyrett 5 years, 7 months ago

Onlythefacts-No matter how you cut it, two wrongs don't make a right. I know years ago when my father applied for crop damage due to deer, the DOW sent out hunters to cut down the number of deer we had on our ranch. Would Rodney have gone this route? Would he have opened his place for strangers to come hunt on his place without charging them to hunt there? Did he complain about the number of deer and elk on his place when he was advertising for his trespass fee? Oh, poor, poor Rodney. Nothing else to do but go out and slaughter the whole herd.

0

Only_the_Facts 5 years, 7 months ago

In reviewing the facts of the case I am afraid our Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) has openly proved they have not been doing their assigned job of managing wildlife. Defining managing our wildlife includes but is not limited to using tool(s) to maintain a balance of range habitat to animal population to a goal of a specified number defined as the correct balance or population objective. That correct balance would be a huntable revenue producing Colorado resource, but below the level that they would be responsible for damage caused by same. This incident began with a series of mismanagement blunders by the DOW that started from the prior annual count of elk in the NW region of Colorado. The population count showed they were over objective, and when questioned on the accuracy of the number the true number was 20,000 more elk. This is not a minor mistake, but edges on perjury due to the extreme relationship of the extremely high amount of published count being 1/3 off the actual count. A total that if provided to the public would prove they weren't managing the elk herd to objective and had not been down to objective for many years with current management actions. This in itself proves that someone, "Was asleep at the wheel in the DOW", for this to be able to go on for such a long time without a satisfying action being implemented. At the end of the fall 2007 hunting seasons it was known by the DOW that with the exception of the second season harvest the elk count was still extremely large. Again a opportunity to take action but none was implemented to provide additional hunting tags to lower the elk count, but the DOW chose to ignore the data that they, themselves collected and analyzed. Then as the fall/winter snows started, and a worse than the prior winter since we have been in drought years, snow conditions went back to a closer to normal level, the DOW saw the problem coming and continued to ignore the situation or use their tools of population management, "Winter Damage Control Hunts", a tool used in the past that thins the elk in the specific areas that the population is above range conditions. In addition it focuses on the problem areas specifically while not removing population from the areas that are not being damaged. This went on for months throughout the late fall and winter, yet the DOW still ignored the signs, and chose to allow the elk to feed off of every ranchers precocious winter hay supply, that the farmers had grown or purchased at a premium price from the previous dry year, to feed their livestock, and support their livelihood. As if reading their data, and hearing from the field and District Wildlife Managers(DWM's) of the complains from the ranchers, seeing the elk problems themselves, no action was taken except to give out the few cattle panels the DOW had for this type of problem, and they soon ran out.

0

cag7232 5 years, 7 months ago

Sounds like the previously posted "anonymous" knows something on this issue! I'm an out of state hunter and my question regarding "management" as it applies to keeping herd numbers in balance with available habitat is: does the DOW (discreetly) rely on the ranchers hay-supply (purchased & grown for cattle) to feed elk? Their estimates (carrying capacity) should only take into account food provided by the natural habitat and not grown for domestic animals. And it shouldn't be too hard to survey landowners (especially the bigger ones in prime elk areas) to determine individual ranchers attitudes / desires regarding their supplemental feedings (cost/loss) going to support elk herds on their property. Why isn't special-area permits and price of elk tags being responsibly manipulated to reflect the need for controlling numbers? The increased abundance of elk tags or revenues derived from them could even be split with participating ranchers. Having this magnificent resource on their property is a blessing not a curse but if DOW does not share the benefits of having / supporting the elk, then it becomes a 'lose-lose for the rancher. If a rancher refused to coop with DOW on a responsive action to promote herd-reduction-hunts then, ranchers would have little defense for such radical actions of indescriminate shooting / wasting the animals. The very sad paradox here is: Rancher has too many elk; Hunters want a reasonably priced elk tag to purchase for legally harvesting the surplus; and DOW is suppose to manage the species to coexist with both. Similar (non)responsive action to these problems seems to be occurring nationwide. The Bears are raiding trashcans in NJ (no hunting allowed), deer are crowding city parks in IL($450 / non-resident deer tag), Mountain lions and bears are stalking / attacking joggers and bikers in CA (no hunting allowed). Is anti-hunter pressure influencing DOW decisions in CO or is it just "tag-revenue greed"?

0

Joanna Hatten 5 years, 7 months ago

Granny....think about this......if Rodney is convicted do you have ANY idea the power this gives the DOW?!?!? It will signifigantly take away landowner rights. The DOW will know they have every rancher and landowner in this county by the short hairs. THINK ABOUT IT!!!!! If a ranchers livestock starves...so do they!! Have you heard any stories about the ranchers who went out and literally stood guard while their animals ate to make sure thier livestock actually ate? Have you heard the stories of the elk goring livestock fighting for hay? Probably not....WHERE WAS THE DOW?!?!?!

0

Sage_Sam 5 years, 7 months ago

I would just like to say that I think this question is completely inappropriate. Asking uninformed people to opine about an ongoing legal case is irresponsible. No one posting here should know all the facts of the case, therefore any opinions given are uninformed and specious. We are talking about a man's life here, trivializing it is asinine and downright sickening. It just furthers the debasing and obtrsive nature of our culture. Whatever happened to minding your own business?

Let the legal system run its course and report on it. Leave the sensationlistic punditry to Fox News and other disreputable media outlets.

0

here_to_stay 5 years, 7 months ago

Its sad to see the paper is tring to convict Mr. Culverwell before the trial has begun. Theres nothing like tring to ruin the bias of the community.

0

notmpoppins 5 years, 7 months ago

I agree with portions of almost every post here. The bottom line is, none of us were there, none of us know ALL the facts, that is why we have a justice system. If you want to learn more about that system and the facts, attend the trial. Educate yourself.
Craig Daily Press... Shame on you! Regardless of who is on trial, posting a poll like this before a jury has even been selected and the trial has begun is more than inappropriate, it is journalism at it's worst. Here is a quote from the United Nations Human Rights Declarations, to help you brush up on your human rights articles. The information in full can be found at

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/preamble.asp

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." "You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you are guilty. If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself."

0

grannyrett 5 years, 7 months ago

getagrip-I have stood out in the cold, freezing winter and tried to keep the elk from moving in on the cattle while they are feeding. I have seen what they can do when they get into a hay stack. I agree that this is a poor question to ask before the trial has started. But, I think that those of us who have fed cattle and fought wildlife know what Rodney has been going through. I question though, the desire to have the elk on ones property when hunting season is in full swing and the expectation that they will leave once winter is here. Can't have it both ways.

0

grannyrett 5 years, 7 months ago

enough-If it were illegal to trap mice, then I would expect you would be ticketed. That is what this all boils down to. It is illegal to go 90 mph through a school zone. If you do that, I would hope you would be ticketed. It is illegal to hunt out of season. It is illegal to hunt without a license. It is illegal to waste the meat when you kill an animal. It you do that, then yes, I would expect that person to get a ticket.

0

Carolynhorse3 5 years, 7 months ago

To a comment by Granny-Mr. Culverwell wasn't "hunting" these elk. He was humanely disposing of starving, trapped elk in his hay pen (which is not their natural habitat). During hunting season these elk are on their natural migration and the DOW issues permits to hunt during that time that is why it is called the hunting season . Anyway, It is natures way of eliminating the weak and overcrowded herds when there are droughts and blizzards-a farmers haypen messes with what is supposed to naturally happen in the wild. It is a finetuning job to balance farmers and wildlife and what is natures natural methods of thinning herds and mans need to manage and protect these herds because of farming. That is the DOWs job. No one knows how many times Mr. Culverwell called the DOW for help-the fact is-he didn't get any help !!! It was a last ditch effort on Mr. Culverwells part to be forced to protect "his" property, his cattle, his hay supply he spends a major amount of time, money and work growing and baling and storing and building protective pens for, and do I even need to mention protecting his wife! They went above and beyond and then finally had to put some animals, who were starving to death, out of their misery! Has anyone mentioned the numbers of elk found starved to death all over that area-along roads, fences, and out in the fields? Mother nature was just doing her job. We need more people like Mr. Culverwell-honest, hard working, full of commonsense (which our society lacks), and compassionate. We need more heroes like him. He is what our country was founded on. And if you want to bring up the hunting season stuff-look around your town and look at all who benefit during that time-everyone does. In fact-that whole area does. So, before you are ready to vote on anything-get knowledge-not emotions-not personal dislikes-get knowledge-be informed of the truth from both sides. When the truth comes out-Mr. Culverwell will be exonerated and I truly believe the DOW needs to be investigated. They need to listen to the farmers-those farmers know everything about those elk-possibly even more than the DOW. The DOW was not there for the Culverwells when they needed them the most, they pay their taxes. Also, how much is the DOW spending on this trial? I would guess $100,000 or more-wouldn't that have been better spent on panels, food, and herd management? You go Rodney-hang in there-I am an American and I support the Americans right to protect their home, their families, and their lives!!

0

Dr Bob Niewoehner 5 years, 7 months ago

Come on folks, you don't go shootin' Elk (or any other wild critter) for doing what they do - rancher or no rancher. He's just one of the "good 'ol boys" who assume that thay can do what ever they want on their 'ranch'. The Elk were here first....live with it, or sell the 'ranch' and move to Arkansas where you belong. Then, he shot 'em and just let them lay - heck, I'm sure there is an orphenage or old folks home or someone who could use the meat - ergo, he's got nothing comming. Convict and punish.

0

Carolynhorse3 5 years, 7 months ago

After reading the comment from 2cool4school, I get the impression they might not have done too good in school or didn't finish?-spelling errors. Again, get the facts. The current size of the herd is too large to be supported by their natural grazing habitat and so, after several years of draught and a very nasty winter, the natural course of things went into affect and they started starving to death (a very natural course, no humans needed). The elk Mr. Culverwell humanely took care of were near death, starving because of natural causes. Elk become aggressive trying to break into and out of haypens (I have seen it where they have died inside haypens from starvation because the food came too late). That is "not" the farmers fault (it is nature at its cruelest) and it is not their responsibility to feed them (that is the DOWs job unless an agreement was made). There wasn't any meat to give to orphanages or old folks homes or anyone else-they were starving to death They had no meat on them-do you know the natural break down of an animals body when they starve to death-it isn't painless. Could you stand by and watch these majestic animals starve to death or would you do the honorable thing and put them out of their misery. Where was the help for Mr. Culverwell he so badly needed and asked for? Can you imagine going out in a blizzard day after day and coming across elk that have starved to death and are near death and you call over and over again for help and none comes-what would you have done? Until you have actually seen what happens, lived on a ranch your entire life, worked to the point of exhaustion, spent a grotesque amount of money and time to keep elk out of the haypens, spent $100s of thousands of dollars to grow a better crop and watch it get eaten because the herd has reached critical mass and nature is unable to support it and the group your tax dollars pay to manage it, isn't doing the greatest job, then you might be qualified to make an informed comment. And as for the wildlife was here first comment, where do you live? What wildlife was affected when trees were cut down to build your home and what about the area it was built in? What about the wildlife affected by the textile companies fabricating your clothes, or the wildlife affected by produce farmers producing food you eat? Our planet is unable to go back to what it orginally was, we have to do our best to work with it-that is why there is the DOW and if the DOW has messed up and forced a rancher to perform a humane act then the DOW should be on trial. It is so easy for people to make judgement on someone else-we need to just take a close look at ourselves and make sure we are living a pure, honest, compassionate, loving, giving, hardworking, commonsense life.

0

enough_already 5 years, 7 months ago

I have not been in your area in years, but I do remember wildlife getting into rancher's hay and doing tremendous damage to property. I also remember years when there were so many deer and elk that they were dying from starvation. The property owners pay their taxes, which pay for the DOW to manage wildlife, so why are they not able to protect their property and livestock from the huge herds of hungry wildlife that the DOW manages? I believe ranchers make their living from raising livestock - this is how they feed their families. They work hard for their property and should have a right to protect it. I trapped a mouse who was getting in my pantry - is DOW going to come and get me? I don't want the government controlling my pantry, and I think it's outrageous that they can tell you not to protect what is your own property.

0

John_Doe 5 years, 7 months ago

Laws are made for a reason. Why should Mr. Culverwell be excused for breaking the law? Am I to assume that all ranchers in support of Mr. Culverwell have dead carcasses all over thier property as well? If not, what is the difference between you and Mr. Culverwell? Is it becasue you know the difference between right and wrong? Without the laws that are implemented for a reason our society would be in even more dissaray than it is now. Can you imagine what liberties Mr. Culverwell would take if he truly had free reign? I can. Two wrongs don't make a right!

0

Defiance 5 years, 7 months ago

Everyone of you that are opposed to what Rodney has done or have voted to convict should have to adopt one (1) elk for the next and upcoming winter. Keep it on your own property and feed it a diet of hay and grass. If you have a garden it will help that much more as then you are supplying feed that you yourself have grown. Just as Rodney was forced to do. About him receiving some form of income from hunters hunting his land. He was just recouping some of his losses from the hay and grass that the elk/deer and antelope had consumed. He was growing that hay and grass to feed his own livestock. Some of that income went into the purchase of taller fences to try to keep the herds away from his crops. If you have a garden, do you tolerate the rabbits and other wildlife that gets into it, or do you say "Come On, Your Welcome" ? There is a "hunting season" (Oct to Feb) for rabbits too. Are you going to wait until that season opens before you shoot or trap that rabbit that has been getting into your garden.? What if it was a herd of rabbits ? If a person was to go out and drive all around his property with a vehicle or ATV and tried driving the herds of wildlife away, you could be arrested for harassing wildlife just like you could/should be for chasing that rabbit/rabbits out of your garden. Colorado law allows landowners to protect private property from most wildlife damage. Rodney was protecting his own and the DOW was not helping him when he had already asked for Help. It is the DOW's responsibility to manage the herds, not the landowner's responsibility to feed them. The same goes for coyotes attacking cattle or sheep. A landowner's property. You do what you have to do to protect your property and what you own and what you have worked for most of your life to earn a living. No where in a property deed does it say that the landowner is responsible for the management of wildlife.

0

grannyrett 5 years, 7 months ago

Let's just wait and and see what happens during the trial. It should be interesting. I believe what I believe. I have lived on a ranch. I have had to fight elk off the feed lot. I know what it is to have to buy extra feed so the cattle will not go hungry. I also never, ever charged anyone a trespass fee. I know hunting does not remove enough deer and elk from an area. BUT, I have NEVER just shot them and let them lay. I believe it's wrong. If you think otherwise, that's your right. I just hope you don't own a farm or ranch and I hope this never is a problem for you. Also, I don't care if you have problems spelling. If you have an opinion, I'd like to see it. It doesn't really bother me, as it does others, if your spelling is a little off.

0

John_Doe 5 years, 7 months ago

Okay, so Rodney kept a few elk from eating some of his hay....how much money do you think he's saved in comparison to what this trial is costing him? C'mon, do you really believe it's about saving himself some money from hay loss? DOW should have assisted him more than they did, but you still can't take the law into your own hands. I thought we created laws so we could call ourselves a civilized people? Is Rodney exempt?

0

John_Doe 5 years, 7 months ago

Getagrip-While you may feel threathened at the thought of the potential power that would be bestowed upon the DOW if they win this trial....I must admit I would feel very threatened at the thought of Rodney Culverwell cruising the county with a loaded weapon thinking he could blow away whatever he wanted to with no consequences!

0

rexford 5 years, 7 months ago

This is for 2coo4school. You should have stayed in School. The Native American was here before you. Why don't you let them use your home for food and shelter and live on your property and pay for it. I believe th DOW should have done their job so this wouldn't be happening. Everybody should have a right to protect their property that they have worked for.

0

jjcarver 5 years, 7 months ago

This topic has really sturred up a bee's nest. However what does it matter? While yes the elk and othey wild game animals do a lot of damage to the crops and etc. The law is the law. If someone is allowed to break the law, let me ask you, Where does it stop? If you or I do something illegal would we not be punished? I know today, by watching the media coverage, different people accused of doing something wrong or illegal they have the right to a fair and inpartial trial. However today whenever someone commits a crime and is arrested, and if they can afford a high profile attorney mny people get off. Now did they do what they were accused of? Did they get away with breaking the law? In the eyes of the court and the jury if they are acquitted they are not guilty. In some of these cases I cannot see how they get acquitted but they are. Does this then set the standard for everyone else to go out and do what they want to? In the case of O.J. "he was acquited" however many peole still consider him guilty. If he was guilty and got off then it is the judical system that has failed. That does not give anyone anyone the power to go out and do what the individual is charged with that is illegal. In our country the law is the law and is to be applied to everyone equally. Without the law I would like you to tell me what would go on if anyone or everyone runs out and break the law as they feel is right for them? Whether or not Mr. Culverwell is guity or innocent. That is not my decision to make. If he is guilty he should be punished like everone else. If he is innocent he should go free. Does this mean I condone the actions of the division of wildlife? No way but they should held accountable for their actions like everyone else is suppose be. Thank-you

0

Defiance 5 years, 7 months ago

Now, suppose you are a landowner and your neighbor's cattle(DOW's elk) break down your fences and get into your crops, just ready for harvesting, and damage a considerable amount. You call your neighbor (DOW) and tell them about the damage and to come and get the cattle (elk) out of your fields and off your property. Your neighbor (DOW) ignores you and tells you "Do whatever you have to do". What do you do ? Are you going to sue to recover your losses and shoot the cattle ? Each day that your neighbor ignores you, means more damage and loss. Rodney took whatever recourse that was left to him. He tried running them off with no avail and no help from the DOW. Now, imagine it is your neighbors dog/dog's(DOW's coyote/coyote's) have become a nuisance and are killing your sheep/cattle/chickens or whatever. The elk have become just as much of a problem due to mis-management. You shoot the dogs/coyotes and then consider you will sue the neighbor only the neighbor sues you first because you shot his dog. The dog was trespassing ! So were the elk !

0

Dr Bob Niewoehner 5 years, 7 months ago

It's good to see that people are at least getting involved - God bless ya. I apologize for my 'spelling' but as an old man my fingers don't hit the right keys - anyway everyone seemed to get my point. Now, if you can believe 'ol Rodneys ex-wife, this ain't his first 'big game hunt' with the good 'ol boys. Ergo, why not talk to some of the 'good 'ol boys'...offer them immunity, and see if in fact they would get 'liquored up' and go shot what ever came to sight? The 'ex' say's that what happened not once but often - I somehow have the feelin' she could be correct. And explain to me how carolynhorse3 knows these poor Elk were 'starving to death'? Hungry...I suspose, but "starving to death"? Come on. Anyway - not the point - Point is - You can't go shooting critters just be cause you can - Sorry. What is it about "illegal" don't you understand? Might not be fair, might not be right....but guys, like our neighbors from the south - "Illegal" is Illegal. Mr Culverwell has nothing coming. Ergo, if you thing Illegal doesn't mean illegal you need to change the law's...don't blame your State Government agency. Get off your butt and change the law's - no sniveling please.

0

Dr Bob Niewoehner 5 years, 7 months ago

For Mr rexford. First of all - for what it worth - I am half White Mountain Apache. I have no idea what that has to do with Mr Culverwell shooting all the "starving" Elk (or my poor spelling for that matter). What I do know is that what he did was and is "Illegal", simple at that - trial or no trial. And the fact that he just left them to rot?....come on, maybe he could have fed some of us poor 'ol Native Americans. Granted, if we would have had a little better immergration laws way back when, he would not even have been here now would he? But again, that ain't the problem. Problem is - you have a guy, with an automatic-weapon, shooting things he ain't suspose to. He broke the law. Even if the "law" is not fair, even if he was 'protecting his property' ... (and I have my doubts there - but ....) he broke the law. Now, if it's not a good law, or there is something 'wrong' with the law - then change the law. Personally, ...I doubt that this is the first time your Mr. Culverwell killed poor 'ol starving Elk (or other critters who happen to be on his ranch)...starving or not.....that just does not seem to be the profile here. Anyway - we will see what happens, that is why we have a Justice system is it not? So, Let's see how well it works. No matter what happens it seems that about half of the people will disagree with the outcome. However, one thing will happen, and you can bet on that - Mr. Culverwell will not be a shooten' any more Starvin' Elk and leaving them to rot. And that's a good thing.

0

John_Doe 5 years, 7 months ago

I'm inclined to believe the "ex" as well. I don't think she would have said there were "good ol boys" with him if it hadn't occurred. If she were lying it would have been much easier to just say she was the only witness. My vote is she the one telling the truth.

0

redneckgirl 5 years, 7 months ago

2cool---it's okay if you misspell...this isn't a friggin spelling bee so those of you that make comments on it.--get a life. People misspell...the point is we know what the poster is saying.

0

Defiance 5 years, 7 months ago

It appears that most of the posters are either local to Craig or from the surrounding area. Do you recall this past winter as being above normal ? Heavy snow fall and high winds ? The elk were starving because their normal fodder/forage was under all that snow. The wind had piled the snow up against fences and hay pens to the point the elk could walk right up to the fence and easily jump over. Once they were on the other side they couldn't get back over, as it was too high on their side. They would panic and attempt to escape which caused many to become entangled in the fences and be injured. If a human approached to open the gates to let them out they would again panic and attack.
The State and DOW have been erecting extra high fences along the highways in some areas and even bought bales of hay and trucked them out to the wildlife in area's around Eagle, CO. this past winter. All this as a "feel good" and "show" for those selected areas. What did they do around the Craig area ?
If the DOW would increase the number of tags and lower the non-resident fees, there would be more hunters coming to the "Elk Capital of the World", benefiting the Motels/Restaurants/Stores and other business' in and around the Craig area. The landowners would then be more accommodating to the DOW, as they would also be seeing a benefit from the reduction in numbers within the herds. The amount of revenue going to the DOW operating funds would increase from the additional tags and fee's paid, instead of relying upon the limited number of tags and high cost of a few non-resident fee's, they now receive. It's the DOW's responsibility to manage these herds of wildlife and not to leave it up to the landowners. The DOW is who should be prosecuted for neglect and mis-management and failure to come to the aid of the landowners who had requested their assistance.

0

John_Doe 5 years, 7 months ago

Defiance-I agree that something needs to be done to the DOW. They are not innocent, but what Rodney did was wrong. They should both be forced to suffer the consequences. The only involved party that truly is innocent is the elk who don't know any better. Right?

0

Defiance 5 years, 7 months ago

The article doesn't mention it but "What kind of condition were the elk in when the DOW found their bodies" ? Signs of starvation ? Injuries ? Besides protecting his property, he may of been performing an act of mercy ?
Why are the elk that were found on adjacent properties being attributed to being killed by Rodney ? If they were shot, then it is that landowner who was protecting his property ? Those that didn't show signs of being shot, died of what causes ? If you kill an elk while driving down the interstate and it damages your vehicle, Can you sue the DOW for your damages ? You can sue a landowner, if it was a cow or horse, etc., because he failed to keep his animal contained ! The landowner can't sue you for killing his animal, it was supposed to be behind his fence. The same applies to the DOW. The DOW is responsible for the management of said elk. The elk were not contained, were trespassing, and damaging property. You could sue anyone that was doing the same to your house or vehicle. Think about it ! The DOW should be the defendant in the case that is currently in court ! The voice recording that the DOW made, Is it even legal ? They didn't tell Rodney about it at the beginning, nor tell him that they had a search warrant when they first arrived. They violated his 5th Amendment Rights ! This case should be thrown out of court as a being Illegal proceedings. More Later:::

0

Defiance 5 years, 7 months ago

" " • DOW officials testified Tuesday and Wednesday that they offered Culverwell every option he asked for that was within legal limits. " "

The DOW here was delegating their responsibilities to Rodney, instead of taking it upon themselves (their responsibilities, remember) to alleviate the problem.

Colorado Constitution:

Article II Bill of Rights

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.


An excerpt from a Supreme Court ruling of long ago: If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.


Now if the DOW is lacking revenue to proceed with remedying situations such as this, why don't they require all of the out of state hunters to buy a "OHV" permit if they are going to be using that vehicle while hunting on State and Federal lands ?
It could be a one time or annual "Use Permit", purchasable when they by their hunting license. Every resident of Colorado must have a current permit on his OHV before they can use it on State and Federal lands.

0

enough_already 5 years, 7 months ago

Those of you who think Mr. Culverwell should be punished because he "broke the law" might want to consider that laws are not always right. If they were, we would not need congressmen and senators. For instance, women wouldn't even be able to vote if a bad law were not changed. Our government is not perfect and neither are our laws - to make this country better, we need more men and women to make a stand and fight for our rights as individuals. It amazes me how many are just willing to accept laws as they are and not consider that our lawmakers are only human and can make mistakes. I know Craig is a small community, so I'm sure that some of the comments posted are of a personal nature, but I urge you to look at the big picture, and see how these kind of laws can cause hardship and grief to those in your community. None of us except the ones in the trial really know what the facts are, so whether on not Mr. Culverwell is guilty or innocent is not for us to say, but I would not try to prosecute him for defending his rights and from the article I read in this paper, it sounds like there is some doubt as to whether he is being treated fairly.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.