*A Hunter/Journalist Responds to Rex Rammell
A "Tyler the Intern" Editorial
The original text of Rammell's press release is in italics. My responses are in bold, regular format. On Saturday, Dec. 4, Rex Rammell sent out a press release telling “his side of the story.” In what largely amounted to an incoherent and insubstantial diatribe against the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Rammell side-stepped a few important facts that compromised the integrity of his story from the beginning.
"Guilty Until Proven Innocent"
“November 30th was a great day, at least until I met a game warden on the trail. I had finally harvested a nice fat cow elk on the last day of the hunt. I punched my tag and was headed home.”
-Technically speaking, the process of “punching” one’s tag is known as “validation.” After harvesting a big game animal, you cut two “V” shaped notches into your tag clarifying the month and day within that month you harvested the animal. According to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s (IDFG) 2010 Big Game regulations:
“The appropriate big game tag must be validated and securely attached to the animal immediately after the kill. The validated tag must remain attached to the carcass until the meat is processed and reaches the place of final storage or personal consumption” (p. 68).
"The officer stopped me and asked for my license and tag. I respectfully gave them to him. He said “your tag is not valid for this area.”
-As a matter of clarification, Rammell was dragging the elk with his snowmobile down a trail. The tag was not properly attached to the animal, but the Fish and Game officer was kind enough to let that one slip given the fact that Rammell was able to actually present a tag, and according to Rammell’s testimony the day afterward, the officer said that was “fine.” However, the officer is correct that Rammell’s tag was invalid. Rammell initially chose to hunt in the Middle Fork Zone with an “A tag.” According to the IDFG Big Game Manual, hunters in that zone were allowed to hunt between Oct. 1 and Oct. 31 (Ibid. 32). The elk tag is only valid within that zone and within the designated time period for the hunt which went through the entire month of October. In late November, Rammell decided that he wanted to hunt elk in the Tex Creek Zone in Southeast Idaho, several hundred miles from the area designated on his (now expired) tag (Ibid. 28). Tex Creek’s general elk season for “A tags” was between Oct. 22 and Nov. 30 (Ibid. 39). Regardless of the open season, Rammell’s elk tag was still invalid for the area.
“I explained to him when I bought the tag at Sportsman’s Warehouse they clarified I could hunt in any open zone in Idaho. He informed me that was incorrect.”
-Rammell had purchased a hunting license as well as a general elk tag to hunt in the Middle Fork Zone of Central Idaho. Within each hunting zone are designated areas known as units. Idaho has 29 hunting zones and 78 units, with zones encompassing between one to nine units (Ibid. 28). Rammell admitted the day after the incident that he was not aware of the difference between a “zone” and a “unit” until after he had killed the elk. Remember, this is a man who is in fact a “life-long hunter.” Hunting license vendors are not experts. Hunters are urged to consult IDFG regulations prior to hunting. When Idaho hunters go to purchase their elk tags, they are asked two primary questions that designate where they will hunt. Hunters seeking general elk tags must first declare their preferred hunting zone, followed by a unit in which they believe they will be spending most of their time hunting. According to the IDFG’s Big Game Manual:
“Hunters may select 1 zone and choose either an “A tag” or a “B tag” in most elk zones” (Ibid. 29).
“I asked him to show me the regulation. He could not, but insisted the tag was invalid.”
-This happened for either one of two reasons. The officer either did not know the specific reference in the regulations, or he did not have the regulations with him. Idaho Fish and Game officers have hundreds of regulations which they are required by law to enforce. The officer was aware of a certain law that prohibited hunting elk in zones outside the zone designated on the tag and was correct (Ibid. 29).
“I said “fine, give me a citation; I will fight it in court.” Then he said I couldn’t keep the elk.”
-As with any infraction, from a traffic ticket to burglary, suspects have the right to “fight” anything in court. At no point does the Idaho Fish and Game officer deny Rammell this right. The citation in and of itself does not force Rammell to admit guilt. The citation allows Rammell to either admit guilt or fight the claim in court.
“I said “but I haven’t been proven guilty.” He didn’t care.”
-Based on the evidence that Rammell was in possession of an invalid and expired tag, these actions warranted the citation. The officer actually presumes Rammell’s innocence until guilt has been lawfully proven. Rammell had the choice to either admit guilt by designating it on the citation, or claim his innocence and choose to fight it in court while still accepting the citation (with the hope that if he is not proven guilty, the citation would be waived). Whether or not the officer “cared” is entirely between Rammell and the officer in question.
“He said “I have to take your elk.” I asked him why. He said it was evidence. I replied “can’t you take a picture or do you intend to mark her as an exhibit and display her in the courthouse?” He said “I’m taking your elk.”"
-Any wildlife taken unlawfully is subject to seizure by Idaho Fish and Game officials. According to according to the IDFG’ Big Game Manual:
“It is unlawful to possess any wildlife or parts that were killed, taken or obtained unlawfully” (Ibid. 66).
Based on the evidence at hand, the officer believed that Rammell had taken his elk unlawfully. Once again, Rammell’s innocence is presumed until guilt can be proven in a court of law. If in fact guilt is not proven, Rammell’s elk would be returned to him. (The day after the incident, Rammell noted that the elk was being processed so as to not let the carcass go to waste.)
“I said “you better get your gun out, because you’re going to have to shoot me if you want this elk.” I then explained to him, if he wanted the elk he would need a warrant. He backed off and said he would follow me out, which he did without giving me a citation.”
-Idaho Fish and Game officers have one of the most difficult jobs in the state. Nearly every person with whom officers engage is either armed with a dangerous weapon on their person or has a weapon within reach. If the events happened precisely as Rammell noted, his actions could have very well warranted an arrest.
“Meanwhile, he called ahead and had two state policemen, two deputy sheriffs, and another game warden waiting for me in Idaho Falls. After arguing for an hour whether the elk was contraband and whether they had the right to confiscate the elk without a warrant or not, I finally gave in and let them take her, still without a citation.”
-According to Local News 8, “Officers said they were ready to issue Rammell a citation, but he ran into his house and wouldn’t come out.”
“However, that wasn’t good enough for them, they had to release a press statement all over Idaho implying Rex Rammell had been caught poaching an elk and had threatened an officer.”
-The word “poaching” never appears in the press release, though the incident was referred to as an “illegal killing of an elk.” The release notes that Rammell made a “threatening statement.” Rammell wanted to provoke the officer into shooting him prior to confiscating the elk. To use a figure of speech, Rammell would give up the elk “over [his] dead body.” Rammell resisted taking the citation (once again, the citation in and of itself does not admit guilt, nor does the seizure of the elk) and fled from the officer.
“Question: If I get shot, who threatened who?”
-I think a more accurate question would be, “who attempted to provoke who toward violence?”
“The rules are ambiguous and I am not the only hunter confused by them and misinformed by Sportsman’s Warehouse.”
-For almost any person having legally harvested a big game animal in the last ten years, the rules regarding zoning and designated seasons for those zones are not ambiguous. Ignorance of these laws has not ever excused anyone from obeying them. For instance, I received my first speeding ticket in Shelley, Idaho. I was travelling 35 MPH in a 25 MPH zone. I was unaware that there was a change in the speed limit. My Shelley friends never told me otherwise. Yet that stalwart Bingham County sheriff’s deputy kindly reminded me that my previously clean record and ignorance of the law did not mean I was excused from obeying it.
“But what really angers me is their “guilty until proven innocent” attitude.”
Rammell perceives that Idaho Fish and Game officers have this attitude, yet he’s failed to prove it in a court of law. Thus, the officers themselves are “innocent until proven guilty” in this regard, just as Rammell himself.
“I had an “A” tag that was required to hunt in Tex Creek. My greatest violation could only be hunting in the wrong zone. “
-Rammell did in fact have an “A” tag. “A” tags were required to hunt in the Tex Creek zone. However, elk hunters may choose one zone, not two, not four, not twelve, just one in which they hunt. The tag only applies to that zone and to no other zone. Not only did Rammell’s tag not apply to the Tex Creek zone, the tag was also 30 days out of season.
“Can that possibly be grounds for confiscation of my elk? Shouldn’t I have the right to argue my case before being found guilty by a game warden on the trail?”
-If the officer had legitimate reasons to believe Rammell had illegally taken an elk, the officer had grounds to confiscate the animal. Rammell had the right to argue his case. Based on the evidence at hand, the officer had grounds to believe that Rammell had acted in violation to state laws and was thus guilty. However, Rammell is not legally guilty until proven so. Rammell may very well believe he did not violate these laws. IDFG is more than ready to present their evidence to the contrary, in a case that will ultimately be decided in the Bonneville County court system.
“What is it with these Nazis? Honest mistakes are treated as harshly as blatant violations. And wouldn’t a suitable fine be sufficient if I actually did break the law by mistake? Why do they need to take my elk?”
-Referring to Idaho Fish and Game conservation officers as “Nazis” is a stretch of the term. Rammell was not shot (even after provoking an officer to do so), he was not arrested (even after arguing with six law enforcement officers who believed Rammell was armed and dangerous and fleeing from them), his house was not broken into (even after Rammell ran inside), his weapon and snowmobile were not confiscated (something that can happen with illegal big game kills), and no citation was written. The only thing the Fish and Game plan on doing is fighting Rammell in court. Rammell wasn’t starved to death. His family wasn’t taken from him. He still lives in a comfortable home with his firearms and possessions. He isn’t forced to wear an armband identifying what his religious, political, or sexual orientation may be.
He’s going to court, not Auschwitz.
If Rammell is found guilty, he’ll probably receive a fine. If he’s found innocent, the elk will either be returned to him or he’ll be reimbursed. The elk was presumed to have been taken unlawfully and thus warranted the seizure by the IDFG conservation officer. If I unknowingly and unlawfully took something, the state can by law, seize that object as evidence that I was complicit in an illegal act. The same applies to wildlife taken unlawfully.
“I think it is time to turn management of the PEOPLES fish and game back to local control by fishermen and hunters at the county level. After all, they actually know what is going on with the fish and game and would like them to be plentiful. To that end I will continue to fight.”
-Contrary to Rammell’s assertion, Idaho Fish and Game conservation officers are keenly aware of “what is going on” with wildlife in the state of Idaho. IDFG officials are largely responsible for documenting known populations of wildlife in any given area. They have 8 regional offices around the state in addition to their headquarters in Boise that in fact allows officers to operate at a “local level.” We owe conservation officers a great deal of gratitude for keeping wildlife populations the way they are. IDFG officers have been a great asset to the state of Idaho, particularly for well-meaning outdoor-enthusiasts. The laws are put in place to manage those populations at a safe and healthy level for the environment.
Are IDFG officers infallible? Of course not. Mistakes happen. Did IDFG make a mistake in this incident? It is possible (I believe in miracles). Did Rammell? Probably.
The day after Rammell’s run-in with the Fish and Game, Rammell stated repetitively that the elk he had killed did not belong to the state. The animals, according to Rammell, don’t belong to anyone until they’re killed by a hunter like him. Unfortunately for Rammell and fortunately for inquiring Idahoans, there is an answer, summarized in the IDFG’s Mission Statement.
"All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping."
And so I continue my fight. My fight toward keeping citizens and public figures honest. My fight toward preserving a better Idaho for my family and friends. My fight toward obeying, honoring, and sustaining the men and women of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game who tirelessly work to make sure that my family can enjoy the outdoors for years to come. They’re not Nazis. They’re not the Gestapo. They’re not witches. They’re just doing their job.
-Tyler Andersen
Rexburg, Idaho
*Two shorter versions of this response are forthcoming in the Rexburg Standard Journal and the Idaho State Journal.
