Claude Dallas, who killed Fish and Game officers, due to be released

Associated Press


BOISE � Claude Dallas, a self-styled mountain man who shot and killed two Idaho Fish and Game officers in 1981, will be released from prison next month, Idaho Department of Correction spokeswoman Tracy McBain said.

Dallas, 55, was moved from a Kansas prison to the Idaho Correctional Institution in Orofino on Jan. 15, McBain said.

He will complete his 30-year prison sentence, minus administrative reductions, on Feb. 6 for two counts of voluntary manslaughter and a weapons charge for the deaths of Bill Pogue and Conley Elms.

The two Fish and Game officers approached Dallas at his desert camp in Owyhee County accusing him of poaching game. They took a pistol he was wearing.

According to trial testimony, Dallas then pulled another pistol that was strapped to his leg, shot both officers and shot them again execution style in the head with a nearby rifle.

He was charged with first-degree murder, but claimed he shot the officers in self-defense.

A jury acquitted Dallas of murder but found him guilty of two counts of voluntary manslaughter, concealing evidence and using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

After he served several years of his sentence, Dallas escaped from the Idaho State Penitentiary in March 1986 by cutting though two chain link fences.

A massive manhunt ensued. Dallas was able to avoid capture for almost a year, despite several sightings and an unsuccessful FBI raid on a suspected hiding place in Nevada.

He was caught in Riverside, Calif., on March 8, 1987.

Several months later, a jury acquitted Dallas for the escape after he testified he had to leave the Idaho prison because the guards threatened his life.

Since then, Dallas has been incarcerated on his original conviction in prisons in Nebraska, New Mexico and Kansas, where he had been since 1989.

He was denied parole in 2001 after telling Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole he would not follow requirements including drug testing and electronic monitoring.

Imagine getting your rig stuck out in the middle of nowhere and this SOB (Claude Dallas) shows up! He might be nice and help ya but then again who knows......................

MtnHtr

JJ-IMO this kind of stuff is total BS!!!!!!! There is no none notta zero way this fella should be out let alone be above ground as we speak now!

Just my thoughts.

Dogz

Exactly Mark, this zero deserved the death penalty, period. It's this kind of BS that makes me vote Republican. Thank our liberal judges for this BS, and that is what this is, a bunch of BS.

My wife went to School with Kathy Pogue the officers daughter. I'm not for one second trying to suggest that what he did was OK or even remotely acceptable. However there has to be a reason he was not convicted of murder.

I rememember this story fairly well. There was a long standing fued between these two officers and Dallas who played cat and mouse throughout the wilderness for years. The officers had a very bad reputation among the folks of the community to. I remember vividly the folks intervied on the news saying they had hoped one day that these two guys would catch up with Claude because they deservied what they would get. It was not just a couple digruntled fishermen who had been ticketed either. It was older ladies and men that had been treated rude and unprofessionally by these two officers.

Lots of comments were tossed about regarding how the next meeting in the bush would end. There was going to be a death when the next meeting took place, both the officers and Dallas were boastfully suggesting this. I suppose I would have feared for my life as well in this situation whether or not I was Claude Dallas or the officers. This meeting in the bush was going to end up with a death or in this case two deaths. I'm not siding with anyone here! Do not misunderstand this post. The chief should have clearly instructed these two officers to take another case or have been moved to another area of Idaho to work. This situation became personal between them. By todays standards that is what would have happened. However I think the whole F&G operation saw this as big fun within the media. The Claude Dallas reports and sightings were on the evening news for a long time. One reason that he was able to stay without detection for as long as he did was through the support of nearly everyone in his community. That should show something about the support the officers did not have from the community!

I also think that most folks would agree that if you take the life of an enforcement officer Prison is not going to be all that fair or safe for you. Also why his first escape was not punished as severe as one would normally get.

I doubt that anyone outside the courthouse will ever know all the details. There is a lot about this somewhat famous case that was embarrasing to the Idaho F&G in regards to the actions of the officers and their personal vendetta against Dallas.

Make no mistake, I'm not a Claude Dallas fan or supporter. I think what occured was absolutely wrong. However there was clearly more to the story then what is seen on the surface or Dallas would have been convicted of Murder. The Evidence was significant for Dallas to win this in an Idaho court after gunning down two of Idahos finest. What actually happened in the bush to exonerate Dallas from 2 counts of Murder? Something really fishy about this in my opinion.

Remember too there was another case where a man was under investigation by Idaho F&G and the feds. Ruby Ridge where Vicki Weaver was shot in the head by a sniper from 200 yards. She was not under investigation and had commited no crime. The Shooter was never convicted of anything either! Think Claude Dallas had reason the fear his life?

Here is a clip from the news on this:
The Weaver incident has spawned many conspiracy theories, many of which include so much evidence that the conspiracy is no longer just a theory. The government's own admissions of wrongdoing and misconduct in their prosecution of Randy Weaver were so incriminating that Weaver's lawyer Gerry Spence relied soley on the government's presentation and rested his client's case without putting on a defense. The jury acquitted Weaver of the primary charges against him.

Now, almost nine years after the siege, the government may finally get to bury the case against their hired gun. An interesting twist in the trail of events following Horiuchi's manslaughter charges however, presents an opportunity for yet another conspiracy theory in the Weaver assassinations: The conspiracy to allow murder. Could seemingly unrelated events be part of a great cover up of federal murder in North Idaho?

JJHACK speaks the truth here.

To this terrible story I will add that Dallas had no choice but to shoot. (The info I get is from friends who guided in Idaho and knew the F&G Officers to be highly egotistical and asking for trouble.)

As I understand, the officers frisked Dallas who was packing two handguns. They removed one and left the other. Now! You tell me.....Why Dallas has not been totally disarmed. These officers were wanting a dual. Dallas drew faster.

I too am not a Dallas Supporter but having not been there and from the lack of support from locals to hunt down Dallas tells me that there is more to the story than has been told.

If the above story is true, what would each of you had done against a bloodthristy law officer who just "unzipped his fly" so to speak in the middle of the wilderness where there are no witnesses and no due process?

CM

Its been awhile but some details about the case are coming back. From what I remember reading, Claude's camp was located north of Winnemucca, NV near the Idaho border. The two game wardens suspected Claude of crossing over to Idaho and trapping and possessing bobcats and then sneaking em back over to to his Nevada camp. There was long standing feud between these men and Claude was able to convince the jury what he did, was out of fear for his life. He also had the support of the local community of nearby Winnemucca, there were even rumors of the locals hiding him while he was on the run. When the FBI showed up in Winnemucca to apprehend Claude, they were met with fierce opposition and uncooperative residents.

I believe there was even a Hollywood movie on the whole case, can't seem to remember its name though. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

MtnHtr

Mtn Hunter,
One small correction, Dallas' camp was located in Idaho. This is why Tim Nettleton, Owyhee Co Sherriff, was the investgating officer. His investigation and pursuit of Dallas nearly bankrupt this remote, small in population but large in area, SW Idaho county. Nettleton used his own private airplane and paid his own way during most of the investigation to help offset these expenses.
The point of confusion, I think, is that the campsight was accessable only from the Nevada side of the border.

There was a book written about this and it told a very different story from your version. I have read the book, and based on the story it told, I don't for 1 second believe that Dallas' life was in danger. He had a long history of breaking game laws and when he was caught trapping out of season, he decided that he wasn't going to let the 2 F&G Officers take him in. The book says that the 2nd pistol was hidden from view and the Officers thought that they had disarmed him when they took his holstered pistol. He wasn't alone at Bull Basin and the guy who he was with testified against him. I can't believe that that guy wouldn't have supported Dallas if there was even the most minimal justification for what he did.

I also think that you are wrong by comparing it to Randy Weaver. Weaver might have been set up by the Feds to sell a sawed off shotgun, but nobody held a gun to his head and forced him to sell it, he did so willingly. If Ruby Ridge hadn't happened, he probably would have been charged, convicted, and sent into the Federal Prison System for the sale of an illegal firearm. I think that it was too bad that the FBI and BATF screwed it up so bad that he didn't go to prison. Randy Weaver is no hero, no matter how many people want to paint him as 1.

Jeff

Jeff
Randy Weaver convinced the jury the shotgun was of legal length when he sold it. It was shown the situation was a set-up. He was NOT set-up to do an illegal act, and illegal act was invented by the Feds. Randy Weaver may not be a hero, but Horiuchi is the main reason I fear my government.

The fact that government officially charged an infant with terrorism (charges were later dropped) tells me there is a serious problem.

For you to suggest the FBI an BATF made mistakes that led to Weaver's release shows a lack of familiarity with the case. For the shooter of Degan to have walked also says some very powerful things. The Feds fear the nuts in Northern Idaho and seem willing to break any law to break them.
art

I have a hard time buying the idea that the wardens somehow "got it in" for Dallas, without him doing anything first and probably several times to make them want to get him.
Where I live today, there are still people that think they are above the game laws, poach outright all through the year, and get a big kick out of the fact they got by with it. There's also plenty of locals and cousins, uncles, brothers,... you get the picture, that will take up for them no matter what.
I guess anythings possible, but for me, it sounds like he used our bullshit of a court system to his benefit and is probably laughing up his sleeve about it.
IMO, people who kill other people, that are found guilty of that, should never be turned out on to an unsuspecting public again. If it was self defense you SHOULD be cleared.
I'm with MT Hunter. Stuff like this is what makes me sleep with my Glock when I'm out hunting, especially tent camping.

Art,

You might believe Randy Weaver, but I don't. I don't agree with everything that the Feds do, and shooting Mrs. Weaver was certainly not justified, but I support the Feds in most cases.

Jeff

The book that I cited is called "Give A Boy A Gun" by Jack Olson. The ISBN is 0440131685 for the paperback edition. There are some good reader's comments on Amazon's web site, including 1 from Bill Pogue's daughter.

Examples:

Reviewer: rick esposito (california) - See all my reviews
In getting to know Claude via correspondence for several years,I believe that I can make a fairly accurate assessment of Claude's true character. Therefore, I believe I can fairly assess the book's veracity and plausibility. The book was interesting, entertaining, and exciting. Mr. Olsen presented the story in as truthful a manner as he could-considering he did not know Claude. In my opinion, overall, a very good book!

Reviewer: A reader
Read "Outlaw" by Jeff Long as well. He interviewed several key people that Mr. Olsen did not include (most declined to be interviewed at the time). All in all a fairly accurate and factual book and if you lived in the area at the time it stirs strong memories and emotions. Those who lived close to the events cannot forget Bill Pogue and Conley Elms.

Reviewer: A reader
As the daughter of Bill Pogue, one of the Game Wardens murdered by Claude Dallas, I know the true story of what happened that day. Jack Olson did a wonderful job of interviewing almost anyone involved and investigating the lifestyle of Claude Dallas that led to this tragic event. I learned as much from reading this book as I did sitting through the long and frustrating trial.

Jeff

I attended gunsmithing school in Denver '78-80. I had already heard of Pogue's reputation by the time of the fatal shooting, which was that he was "gun happy" and prone to pistol whipping suspects at the slightest excuse.

I don't know if this was true, but it was what the grapevine was laying down, even a couple states away! Given that I am not exactly the most clued in guy, and that it crossed my plate, this says something about the strength of Pogue's rep.

This is not a good attribute for an LEO.

Dallas appears to be a renegade in his own right. There is no doubt that he was a chronic and repeat poacher. As I recall, the officers removed his belt gun, but did not frisk him - and he had another piece tucked into his waistband, either in front or in the back.

I suspect his character has not changed, and that he won't last a year on the Outside.

Nor should he.

Flipside:

The Dallas case is trivial at best,as compared to stuff Politicians do routinely.

Ted Kennedy,a portly example.

Enron scandals,another.

Clinton,largely in a class unto himself.


My opinion is that the man opted judged by 12,as opposed to bein' carried by 6 and my gut tells me he had reason. That is NOT an approval rating,as much as musing out loud.

He was processed,did his time and let the poor bastard be................

Dang there's a novel thought!

Does anyone else see the logical flaws in this section?

1) was she THERE when it happened?
2) what does her being the daughter have to do with her knowing The True Story?
3) if she knows the true story, how did she learn as much reading this book as she did in the court room?
4) was she present during the intervies and investigation?

Easy does it fellas.
I remember a few years ago when Hurricane Carter was let out of jail. All the liberals hailed this a victory for a black man unjustly convicted of murder.
I heard talk show after talk show & a few interviews filled with people joining in the travesty-train of Carter's conviction.

When I researched it and found out what the evidence actually was, and why he was released from jail years later, I was so pissed off I refused to go see the movie.

As far as I'm concerned they let a murderer out of jail, then to make matters worse, he made money on his crime with TV appearances, book deals, and a movie.

I have a hard time getting behind all the speculation of this thread.

Why wasn't he convicted of murder? It might have been something as simple as the officers approaching him and detaining him. He didn't go looking for them, they went looking for him.. After that all you have is Dallas's version.

Unlike the Hurricane Carter trial, there really wasn't any evidence or eye witnesses to tell the story of what happened, just one guy who pulled the trigger, and two guys who can't tell their side of the story.

I'm not so quick to be livid,in a case frought with discrepencies.

Fact is stranger than fiction and I believe the man has justly paid the dues,passed unto him.

That don't make him an automatic dick,in my book,nor cannon fodder. I'm not a champion of the man,nor gloat his deeds,but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have a leg to stand upon and warrant reprieve of his sentence.

My hunch is,he wasn't/isn't,as vile as made to be,despite my perhaps being alone in that perception..............

Who are we talking about Carter? There were no discrepencies.
He walked on a technicality given to him by a liberal judge.

There were eye witnesses, there empty shell casings found in the car in which he was hiding in the backseat, their were threats heard, there was motive.

------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the man has justly paid the dues,passed unto him.

Well actually no, he got out early before he served the sentence passed unto him.

Dallas...not Carter..................

OK, I agree. One will never know for sure, but there was a trial, a verdict, and it sounds as if he served his sentence in full.

There is a big difference in being 25 and 55, the man might have changed. I guess we will see.

I'm real happy there are laws in place that won't allow him to make any money from this once he comes out.

In Carters case his verdict was overturned so he was not guilty anymore of the crime he commited, therefore entitled to profit from his story.

I remember reading the case in one of the LEO magazines,, there was some thing about this causing the state to arm the wardens..

Does any one know if the wardens were issued weapons at that time..

I have no love for a cop killer, as I still wear the badge,,, but if he has done his time, and the state cuts him loose then so be it,, hope he gets the chance to start over

I am with friend Stick on this Claude Dallas deal. Obviously I don't know diddly about the case save what I read in various articles at the time and here and now.

He has done the time that a jury gave him. Let him go and see what happens next I guess.

I'd say something was wrong somewhere if the DA or prosecuting attorney or what ever the call them up there had two dead game wardens, the man that did it, and could not/would not run him for capital murder. I don' t know what it was but something. There was a jury trial so it wasn't a plea bargin.

I have lived long enough in this old world to know and have known cases first hand where there is trouble between two men that no law, or arbitration or what ever will settle. Either one will have to leave the country or there will be a killing sooner or later.

This may have been one of those cases.

BCR

The state definatly pushed for murder, the jury though could only come back with a manslaughter conviction. There were a lot of problems between the members of the jury. Some wanted to hang the accused and some wanted to turn him loose. The manslaughter conviction was a workable compromise.

Jeff
You do not believe Weaver? Certainly he was a liar about his "tunnel rat" experience in Viet Nam and certainly he is not someone I would have much use for, for anything. But the governemnt's case was built around a sawed-off shotgun. A single crime I find petty.

For it, LEOs were willing to murder two Weavers, uninvolved in the hack job, regardless the perp. Between Weaver and Waco I fear the Feds are way out of control and there has been zero accountability. Degan may be considered a victim also, but he excercised extremely poor judgement to end up where he did.

The agent with Degan clearly lied about the circumstances. What has been done about that?

Weaver went to jail for failing to answer the summons and was not convicted of the original crime. There was little hesitation on the part of the jury about that point.

I believe the plan was to fire-bomb the cabin, too. I cannot imagine Horiuchi sleeping nights. If he does, my sympathy spins to antipathy, immediately.
art

You're kidding, right? He killed two people. How is that trivial?

[bleep] dude,do you live in a cave?.............

Huh? Do I have to live in a cave to think that killing someone is emphatically not trivial? Even if it's justified, it's an extreme measure not taken lightly.

Claude Dallas........even though I've read the book.......I wasn't there, so all I can say is there was a reason he was not found guilty of murder........there has been speculation that he would have been acquitted of all charges if he hadn't administered a "cou de gras" to the wardens........he did his time and I hope the rest of his life is peaceful!


I have met Randy Weaver.......I won't say I believe everything he has to say, I will say I believe him over the Feds who were trying to cover their backsides when they screwed up and got caught! If those ninja suit wearing jackbooted thugs shot my son in the back.......I don't believe they would have found me sitting in my cabin waiting for that coward sniper to shoot my wife in the head!

.......even if you assume that Weaver was guilty of cutting a barrel too short, I know the court system said he wasn't guilty, but, let's assume he was........was a $200 tax worth the lives of those who died???

Waco?? I have often wondered........how many more body bags would have been filled with Feds if the jackboots that pulled off the botched raid had been up against a small group of motivated and competent shooters, instead of Koresh and his followers???? From everything I have seen, the Feds got off lucky in that fiasco!

In both cases, the Feds could EASILY have arrested Weaver and Koresh without any loss of life......instead, they chose to grandstand and people died.......for that, someone in power should pay dearly!

If you ever doubt that the Feds are out of control.......do a quick search for ATF abuses....I assure you, there is NO shortage of examples to read about and they will make you sick........look for the case of John Lawmaster and read what happened to him........John was my friend.........

There was a documentary on tv about dallas awhile back. It stated that had been poaching for a long time. He had been caught and written up for it. He made a statement to several people that if he was caught again they would never take him alive. It also said that he was poaching on private property, the rancher that owned the property called Pogue and reported it. Pogues regular partner wasn't available so he called on Elms to go with him. I've also talked to people that knew the wardens and they say that Pogue was well known for being a jerk but the the other guys was realy a nice guy. In my opinion just because a guy is a real jerk and a pain is no reason to kill him. If Dallas hadn't been doing wrong and had the reputation for doing wrong he wouldn't have had to worry about getting caught or having to "defend" hisself. Again, just my own opinion but, I don't think he got what he deserved and shouldn't be getting out.

I remember when Dallas was on the loose.
The wardens up here were looking out for him, also.
There has been so much BS spead about this one, that a fella can't decipher fact from truth from BS.

Up here, however our game Wardens are thought of as lower than pond scum.
My hunting buddy for years, best man at my wedding, and a heckuva Game warden summed it up like this.
"if a cop pulls a guy over and gives him a ticket for speeding through a stop sign, he says" Well, I was wrong , ya. thanks anyway"
If a warden gives him a ticket for ANYTHING, he says" no good for nuthin'@#&^##@ holes! Wait'll I see him again!"
Like they have some right to do whatever , as long as a Warden doesn't see them.
I got no time for crap like that, or any of the nonesense, fables or all out rumours about this charecter or the case.
I even skip over the song on Ian Tyson's CD that he wrote about it.
Catnthehat

People die all day,every day. Get used to it,as it ain't gonna change.

My intent wasn't to slight the two gents in question,as much as a hint to look at the big picture.

So I'm not gonna try to ride into town on a moral high horse and beckon punishment for a dude that mighta only been guilty of rightfully saving his own hide,has paid his dues and deserves a shot at peaceful anonymity for those troubles.

I plainly stated,that there's lotsa Politicians who have far dirtier hands,for less compelling reasons.....................

I've read the book, and Ian Tyson's song about Dallas is one of my favorites. I neither support or condemn Dallas. I think he served his sentence and probably just wants to be left alone. There's lots of other convicted criminals out in society who have done worse. I doubt that this case would have gathered all the public attention, books, movies, songs, etc., if Dallas had killed two regular citizens instead of Game Wardens..............

As much as we may enjoy our banter about Claude Dallas and select which side of the fence we want, the system (our system) of justice was applied, a jury reached a verdict and the verdict has been carried out. The rest of the story may never be fully told despite a witness to the killing (Jim Stevens), but, for those interested they can access the transcript of the trial and form an opinion based on the facts the jury had to evaluate. Short of this, why would we try to second guess a jury verdict of his peers?

But, if you are ever in Paradise Valley, NV, north of Winnemucca, stop by the main local bar and buy a round, bring up the subject of CD and hear the stories of those that were and are still in the area when CD was around.

Since I have a very negative opinion of anyone who kills a LOE, I'd like to read the trial transcripts, how do I access them?

Jeff

The fact that he had them incapacitated apparently, and then shot them execution style , says volumes to me. I still think he should never see light of day.

Ah, but do you also have a very negative opinion of any LEO who abuses his authority or is corrupt.

Niether of which, of course, is a capatal offense, and no excuse to perform an execution. But is nauseating none the less.

Handloader, I think that you raise a very important point, one that I think is all too often overlooked. We have a justice system, which while we all know is not perfect, was applied in this case. I think that there is a real tendency on the part of all of us (myself included) to jump on the system any time that the outcome is not what we wish it to be. Count me along with those who do not condone wanton killing, but who do feel that there is more to the event than we will probably ever know.

LEOs who abuse their power should be dealt with within the legal system. No, it doesn't always work out, but good LEOs don't like bad LEOs any better than you or I. Besides that, what proof is there that either of the LEOs who Dallas killed were either corrupt or abusive?

From what I've read here, a lot of people "heard" stories about Bill Pogue being a bad guy, but he might just have been "tough" and the stories were floated by people he had caught breaking the law. What about Elms, was he a bad guy too?

When was the last time that you wrote a letter to, or made an appointment with, somebody in your state's F&G hierarchy because you had a negative interation with a F&G officer?

When was the last time that you wrote a letter to, or made an appointment with, somebody in your state's F&G hierarchy because you had a positive interaction with a F&G officer?

I have done both, 1 got me an apology and the other a "thank you" the next time he, it was the same guy, stopped me to check my license.

Jeff

Game wardens have always had reputations as being overbearing when compared to other LEOs. My own experiences with em have mostly been positive, if you are polite to them then they are usually polite back. Some are just plain gung-ho.

One always hears of a certain game warden who overstepped his authority, usually some rambunctious type. Years ago, the entire Utah state DWR law enforcement was revamped after too many complaints of abuse to the govenor.

I do think game wardens have one of the toughest jobs out there, putting in alot of hours to catch some dirtbag poacher.

MtnHtr

This has been an interesting post to read considering I had never heard of Claude Dallas before yesterday.

Can someone paint me a better picture of how the killings supposedly went down? What story did the jury hear?

From what I've read thus far, it seems he shot them with a pistol and then finished them off with a rifle "execution style"...what was the reasoning for using the rifle to finish them off? I wouldn't call him a criminal just b/c he finished them off, but what I question is why use the rifle if it was execution style (which I invision being close range)?

If he was defending himself and there was distance between he and the officers, it would make sense that he would grab a rifle to make sure they were dead at what felt like safe distance...instead of approaching them to do if up close with the pistol and taking the chance that if not completely dead they could snap off a quick shot at him. BUT, it just doesn't make sense to have a pistol in your hand, put it down, and then grab a rifle to shoot them up close. There could be details I've missed or just don't know, like him running out of ammo with the pistol...this is just one of many things that stuck out to me.

As I remember from reading the above menbtioned book several years ago, Dallas mortally wounded both wardens with one shot each from a 357 mag. He then walked to his tent, retrieved a 22LR and delivered a "coup de grace" to each officer rather than stand and watch them bleed out.

There was another thread on this subject a few days ago. Here is a link in case you are interested and missed it.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads...true#Post418714

Im not going to guess on Idaho law but California law does not allow anyone to resist arrest but it does allow someone to resist unlawful force. If Dallas feared for his life he could have shot both of the officers, claimed self defense and walked with a good attorney. What baffles me is that he could finish them off with a rifle and not be convicted of murder.

just curious, would it make a different in your opinions in this matter if the dead men were just regular people and not law inforcement officers?
there are always 2 sides to a story and the court seems to have heard both sides and agreed with DALLAS to some extent.
just because the dead men are law officers doesn't get him the guilty verdict from the jury or ME.
i admit i'm not familiar with this case and i'm not defending him in any way, but a person should get his day in court and not in the media.
sambo

Well, he got his day in court, was found guilty, spent his time in prison, and paid his debt to society.

I reread "Give A Boy A Gun" last night.

The jury decided that Dallas was guilty of manslaughter, however, since each case must be judged on its own merits, the jury didn't hear about Dallas' long history as a game law violator. Also, the defense put the dead men, Pogue/Elms, on trial and were successful in vilifyng them with a bunch of unsupported, "I heard" and "I know a guy who heard", character assassinations. The prosecution wasn't nearly as effective in their efforts to convince the jury that Dallas wasn't a romantic figure who was living off the land and minding his own business.

In contrast to what some have written here, there was no mention in the book of any "bad blood" or direct prior contact between Dallas and Pogue/Elms, although Dallas was well known in Nevada and Idaho as a chronic garme law violator. Dallas' illegal trapping at Bull Basin was reported to Pogue by 2 local ranchers, the Carlins. The younger Carlin had been to Bull Basin, had spoken with Dallas, and had seen a bobcat pelt that Dallas admitted to have taken prior to the opening of the season. Perhaps the younger Carlin's information gave Pogue/Elms the probable cause necessary for them to search Dallas' tent and find the evidence of illegal hunting/trapping that they must have found, if they were planning to haul him in to jail.

Jim Stevens, the acquaintance of Dallas' who was present through the whole action, testified for the prosecution, not for the defense. Steven testified that Pogue/Elms disarmed him by removing the cartridges from his revolver and that they did the same to Dallas, who was carrying a pistol/revolver outside his coat. It appears that Pogue/Elms screwed up when they didn't pat Dallas down. If they had, they would have discovered that he was carrying a concealed revolver under his coat. That was the revolver that he initially shot them with. Steven reported that Elms was carrying his revolver/pistol in shoulder holster under his coat and never had a chance to draw his gun before Dallas shot him down.

Regardless of whether Dallas got off easy or not, he'll be getting out of prison in a few days and will be as free as any other convicted felon. I suspect that, wherever he settles, every LEO in the area will be watching him in the same way that you, or I, would watch a known sex offender who moved into our neighborhood.

Jeff

An FBI agent had a letter to the editor of a trapping periodical a few years ago. (Can't remember the name, same format as Shotgun News).
In that letter, the FBI agent talked about an assignment he and some fellow agents were on in the jurisdiction of the warden that Dallas killed, Bill Pogue. Pogue came into their camp at night, before he realized they were FBI that they nearly killed him, fearing for THEIR lives. Pogue, from eveything I read, was a belligerent, abusive man that liked to abuse his power. Dallas had never exhibited any violence prior to the run in with Pogue, and that apparently played a huge factor in Dallas not being executed. One witness to the trial said that if Dallas had not shot both men again in the back of the head, he probably would have been acquitted.

Royce

All I know about this case is what I have read. The way I interpret the information, the stories about Pogue being abusive were unsubstantiated. If they were true, it is hard to believe that the hierarchy in the Idaho F&G wouldn't have kept him on a very short leash. It is a common practice for defense attornys to vilify the LEOs who are involved in their cases, since they only need to raise the specter of doubt in the minds of the jury members.

Based solely upon what I have read, I think that a person who hadn't commited a game violation wouldn't have any trouble with either Pogue or Elms. I have always found that being polite and respectful to an LEO gets you further than does an angry manner. A person who had violated the law, as Dallas had done by taking the bobcat that Carlin saw, should expect to get due process, as that was what the State of Idaho employed Pogue and Elms to do, catch game violators. I am almost always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the LEO, particularly in cases where the defendant is known to violate the law.

Jeff

I worked with a couple of game wardens in the old Montana F&G (1950s, 1960 � I was a biologist, not a warden) who richly deserved and invited killing but were still alive only because it was illegal to kill 'em. Jim F was especially bad � it was obvious to all who knew him that he longed for an excuse to kill somebody legally. As it was, he delighted in any excuse or opportunity to beat the pee out of any fisherman or hunter who gave him the least excuse. He once sneaked-up on a fisherman and without any preamble opened the man's bait bucket. The man slammed the lid on Jim's hand. With a delighted grin, Jim (a martial-arts and physical-fitness guy) beat him to pulp.

If either of the Idaho wardens was as bad as Jim F, he invited killing. BUT killing him would still be illegal unless there was a good case for self-defense (easy to imagine).

So I don't know enough to judge the extent of Claude Dallas's guilt. A jury who heard the official presentation of the evidence judged that, and a judge sentenced him to a prison term that's about to end. That's enough for me.

Except for a special curiosity.

Last summer, a friend here bought a copy of my book for a gift and brought it over for me to sign it. He planned to present it to a friend of his this month, when the recipient was scheduled to be released from prison. So I signed that copy of my book to Claude Dallas. Naturally, I'm curious about whether I'll ever hear from him and what kind of fellow he is now, after a few years "in stir" to think about those shots that he fired so many years ago.

I can't ever excuse killing a law enforcement officer or anybody else unless in fear of my life or to protect somebody else. As I recall, everybody knew Dallas was an outlaw and routinely poached game including desert big horns. The finishing shots to the wardens heads were one example that showed that he believed he was beyond reproach. Then, if I recall correctly, he dragged the warden's bodies up the hill to his truck using his mule and an appropriately long rope so he could hide the bodies. He buried the bodies and at least one of them wasn't even found until after the trial.

Dallas broke out of jail. I believe Dallas thought he was above the law. I believe the law is you and me and it is for you and me. The law is what gives us civility and order in our lives. Without it or with a disregard of the law, we are all at risk. Dallas believed he was above the law and had no regard for it.

I cannot and will not condone what Dallas did or cannot contrive any justification for it. The people of Idaho are of better character than the image that Dallas and the Ruby ridge guy (and the Feds involved at Ruby Ridge) have portrayed. I am ashamed that these two incidents even happened in Idaho. Idahoans are better than that. Frankly the Ruby Ridge incident should not have happened anywhere.

If the facts of the casre are true that Dallas shot in self defense, let each of us ponder in our minds what we would have done had we been in a similar situation where, though we were breaking laws, there was a deadly situation and violent LEO's who seemed bent on doing harm or worse and "Due Process" was not going to happen? There you are in a shoot or be shot situation and there are no negotiations. I am pretty sure I would have shot too. Only God knows for sure what happened that terrible day.

Now for Ruby Ridge: Come on man! That was a "witch hunt" for extremists. It can easily happen again. If R. Weaver is a White Supremist, it is his right to be one. You cannot force people to be tolorant. I am not racist but you have to remember that each of us has the right to our beliefs. As far as anyone knew, Randy Weaver had never commited violent crimes on behalf of his beliefs. You cannot judge others according to how you see that Idahoans should be or are supposedly are according to your opinion.

I have lived in Idaho for about 5 years. I see good people here, but I have traveled a lot of places in most states and several countries and I see good people everywhere.

I have my beliefs and they are precious to me. One day the LEO might come for me and call me a threat to the Nation. If it comes to such a situation and negotiations and due precess is nonexistant, then I will likely shoot too.

CM

.260 rem,

by the justice depts report (available online) the shotgun that randy weaver sold was of legal length...
the agents who set him up measured the barrel length from the end of the chamber and assumed that it was illegal...
the shotguns barrel, when properly measured in the courtroom, from the breachface , was of legal length.....

i don't know randy weaver, and i don't make him out to be a hero from the events at ruby ridge.
i do believe that law enforcement in America needs to be a local issue..... elect a sheriff who will do the job and let it be..... there is no reason for the federal government to use arrest powers for a local crime..... john w

The "facts" of any case hinge on the interpretation of what the witness/witnesses saw from the his/her/their position. In this case, the only 2 survivors were Dallas, the killer, and Stevens, the non-participant friend of Dallas'. Dallas testified that he was threatened, but Stevens didn't see it that way. If he had, don't you think that he would have testified in that manner?

Even if you think that Pogue was a strict and over-bearing LEO, Dallas' killing of Elms was totally without merit, IF, as according to Stevens, Elms never had a chance to draw his weapon. Dallas COULD have threatened to shoot Elms and, if he had stopped, not shot and killed him. There was no testimony to that effect.

It appears to me, somebody who doesn't hold a JD, that the defense team just did a better job than the prosecuting team. The defense put Pogue on trial and managed to vilify him in the minds of the jurors, such that the prosecution tried, but couldn't undo the character assassination that had already settled in the minds of the jurors. Remember, the prosecution was able to rebut many of the witnesses who testified against Pogue.

Although the Judge couldn't influence the jury in their manslaughter decision, he did sentence Dallas to 30 years in prison, based on the "facts" that were presented and the pre-sentencing investigation. He was allowed to take Dallas' long previous history of game violations into account as well as the knowledge that Dallas was very practiced at the art of handgun combat. Those 2 points of fact weren't presented to the jury and might have influenced them toward a harsher sentence if they had been admissible.

I think that anyone who runs from, or resists, an LEO is asking for trouble. It is my opinion that you want to calm what is already a tense situation, rather than inflame it.

Jeff

Gun violations, such as manufacturing a sawed-off shotgun, are a Federal violation that falls under the the BATF, not local law enforcement.

I really don't have any interest in Ruby Ridge or Waco. I am interested in the killing of Bill Pogue and Conley Elms because I think that they were murdered, Elms particularly so, and JJ initially compared their killing to Ruby Ridge. I don't think there are any similarities.

Jeff

The facts are that Stevens never saw the shooting. He was in a tent. If he had saw the shooting and testified there was no threat, Dallas would have been on death row or dead already. Stevens had taken Elms into the tent to show him the furs. That is when Dallas shot Pogue. The only living witnesses are Dallas and God. Elms was shot as he came from the tent with his gun drawn. Stenvens saw that shooting, not the first deadly encounter with Pogue.

CM

CM

The ATF is an unconsitutional orgaization. Even though, the ATF messed up when measuring the barrel lenght of the shotgun as they typically mess up most things they become involved in.

CM

Your version doesn't match Olsen's and I choose to believe my interpretation of Olsen's works/research until I read something that changes my mind.

I believe that Dallas wasn't convicted of murder because of the vilification of Pogue. I don't believe Dallas is any more innocent than O.J. Simpson. In both cases, the defense put the law enforcement officers on trial and managed to convince the jury that their client was a sympathetic figure. The judge, who knew more than the jury was allowed to know, didn't believe that Dallas was innocent either.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Mrs. Pogue and/or Mrs. Elms filed civil litigation against Dallas in that way that the Goldman family did?

Jeff

Claud did his time and now is getting out. We are shooting in the dark with our opinions, because no one knows what really happened to esclate the events leading to 2 lives lost.
I like cops and I have several friends who wear/wore badges from F&G to the FBI, all extreamly nice folks. I have also met the other side that wear/wore badges. One in particular stands out in my mind. He was a young gung-ho P-R-I-C-K, who decided that a friend, that had just closed the doors to the gunshop for the day, and I were up to no good, talking at the curb, standing next to my pick-up. Well, he proceeded to tell us that we could either go home, or he could take us to jail. It was only 5:30 pm, so I went home and promptly called the chief and voiced a complaint. It didn't seem to do much immediate good. About 9 months later, a Sargent on the same police force informed me that the little fellow was no longer employed with them. Seems that for several months, he had been roving around at night going to where young couples parked. He would demand that the girl get out,pull her dress up, or pull her pants down to make sure she was wearing panties, thereby ensuring the couple wasn't breaking the obscenity laws. He finally picked a girl whose father had enough clout to get the little pervert fired. So with law enforcement, just as in any other occupation, there are some very fine folks and then, there are some certifiable jerks.
Not knowing all the facts, I haven't formed an opinion on the subjects.

Look up the Tueller drill. It's obvious you won't take any opinion that doesn't agree with what you've read of someone else's opinion.

I am just relating the story as told in "Give A Boy A Gun".

See, I've cited my source of information. Heck, if you want, I can even cite it by page and paragraph. No, "well I've heard" or "it was well known" from me. Actually, I did go as far as looking up Tim Nettleton's telephone number on www.USA.com, but I decided that it would be too intrusive for me to call him and ask him if he would be interested in commenting on this thread.

The thing about this thread that disappoints me is that so many people are willing to accept that Pogue and Elms were abusive and overbearing and that Dallas might have been justified in killing them. Heck, they knew that Dallas had broken the law even before they got to Bull Basin, since Carlin told them that Dallas had admitted taking a bobcat out of season. I suspect that they arrived expecting to find a violation, they found a couple of violations, and a violator who was angry about being taken in for breaking those laws. What were the Pogue and Elms suppossed to do, ignore the violations and go on their ways? They had already ticketed another trapper that Carlin told them about earlier on the day that they were killed.

I read about the Tueller drill. Probably Dallas did too, since he was practiced in combat handgun shooting. The prosecution wanted to introduce Dallas' combat shooting books into evidence, but the Judge decided that they might prejudice the jury. Maybe the guy who killed all of those hunters in WI read about it too. Hey, there's a thought, maybe he'll get a jury to believe that he didn't murder those people because he felt threatened. Hey, maybe his attornys will seek out and talk victim vilification strategy with Dallas' attornys. Wouldn't that be something!

If I can get ahold of the trial transcript, I'll share it with you if you'd like.

Jeff

Interesting thread. If nothing else, it settles the question of whether or not I'll carry a sidearm if I decide to bowhunt this year, which is now legal to do in Oregon.

Isn't "Big Brother" watching this whole thread right now... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In both cases, the Feds could EASILY have arrested Weaver and Koresh without any loss of life......instead, they chose to grandstand and people died.......for that, someone in power should pay dearly!

I'm not so sure about Waco.
I was watching a specail the other night and was suprised to find out that during the siege at Waco, ATF and FBI officers didn't shoot one round, while at the same time hundreds of shots were fired at them. Doesn't sound like grandstanding to me.
At that point I don't think you just walk away and let them be.
I feel for the kids in that compound, but I feel Koresh is to blame for the whole mess, not the "jack booted thugs".

"I was watching a specail the other night and was suprised to find out that during the siege at Waco, ATF and FBI officers didn't shoot one round, while at the same time hundreds of shots were fired at them."

Bet the folks there would be just as surprised to learn that as you were... Have no idea what kind of garbage "special" you got spoonfed across your TV, but there are many good videos of what happened that are 180 out from your "special."
art

It was on one the specials that the History channel ran on snipers the other night; the one on law enforcement snipers.

They interviewed some of the snipers that were there. I guess they could be lying on national TV, I just assumed if they were somebody would call them on it if they were.

I'll have to watch it again, maybe I misunderstood, maybe they said no shots fired until fired upon, or maybe they were talking about the snipers.

MMark, they must have meant just the snipers maybe. I don't know about that. I do know that I was watching TV when the local channel broke in with a special report live.

I saw a guy with FBI on the back of his jacket crouching behind a car door and shooting around it at something off camera. I saw the slide come back and empty hulls come out of the top of that pistol. So at least one was shooting.

Not going to get into the ethics, such as they were, of Waco. Everybody got their own take on it.


BCR

This was shown on TV as it was happening. You can't change history no matter how hard you try. SOME of the FBI guys maybe were not firing. But I damn well saw lots of others FIRING over and over.

Your sniper special smells of doodoo. Was it made by Michael Moore by any chance.

Tex

Anyone who unlawfully threatens a life is subject to the other human acting in self-defense, LEO or not.

Not about Dallas, but I just watched the special about the ATF and Waco. I have no idea where you get the idea the ATF never fired a shot. Every news clip/video I've ever seen shows ATF Agents on the ground firing pistols, while the agents on the roof are firing MP5's as they're entering a second story window, never to return. Their snipers may claim to have never fired a shot, but there's conflicting stories about that.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were a mess from the get go and left people dead on both sides that didn't need killing.

MMarketello -"I'm not so sure about Waco.
I was watching a specail the other night and was suprised to find out that during the siege at Waco, ATF and FBI officers didn't shoot one round, while at the same time hundreds of shots were fired at them. Doesn't sound like grandstanding to me."
___________________________________________________
MMarketello, as usual, just as with the lies the left liberals on teeeveee tell you about those evil semi-automatic guns they --and you -- want to ban, you've again swallowed hook, line, and sinker, the left wing pap fed you by the propagandists who made that "special."

I, too, watched the shootout the day of the event in Waco, and it was quite blatently obvious the FBI & BATF agents were firing many, many rounds at the people in the plywood building, called by the idiots media pap pushers, "a compound."

Koresh could have been arrested at any time without all the murder that later occurred at WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out!). But the Klintons, Butch Reno, and the hard chargers at BATF wanted to have "a show," a "media event." So that's what they had.

L.W.

L.W.

a jury of dallas' peers said manslaughter, and now he's done his time..... let him live his life.....

as to the atf, they are a solution in search of a problem..... why can the state not regulate such matters, within the framework of the constitution, and the sheriff not enforce them??.....

a team of federal agents followed koresh on foot through downtown waco, and held off from arresting him at that point in order to take advantage of the fact that arresting agents are allowed to conduct a search of a dwelling or place of business, pursuant to arrest, without a search warrant, if the arrest occurs at said dwelling or place of business.....

Interesting thread.

I think a lot of people would be surprised at what it is like to sit on a jury in a criminal case. I know I sure was. It ain't always like the movies either!! I never realized what a job it is for the prosecuting attorneys to prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt. When both the defense and the prosecution rest and you are locked up in a room with eleven other people it is sometimes unbelieveable how hard it is to agree on things. Add to this you have a list of instructions you are supposed to go by in order to find a person guilty and things really get tough, especially in a case such as the Dallas case where there were conflicting stories and differing opinions of him. Actually I have read the jury foreman said that if Dallas hadn't shot them in the head after the initial shootings he could have been found inocent. Gut feelings don't always matter lots of times, hard facts do. In this case there undoubtedly were not sufficient "hard facts" to convince the jury he was guilty of the maximum charge so they agreed to agree on the lesser charge. Actually this was the way it was on the case I served as a jurror. Four of twelve people said there was no way they felt the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the person was guilty of the maximum charge, so the reduced charge was more or less a compromise of sorts. At least it was a conviction, as was the Dallas case. Judges get mighty upset as a rule when you end up with a hung jury.

I'm with Big Stick on Dallas serving his time. When I worked at a state prison and had inmates working for me one of the things I always said was that I wasn't there to judge them. Someone else already had done that and as far as I was concerned that the time they served was payment for what they had done. I still feel that way. From what I gather besides serving his time, Dallas has pretty much been a model prisoner so I too feel that he should be left alone to try and get his life back together. Fortunately for him he is still young enough that he has a chance to do that. I wish him luck in that.

Like I wrote before, I don't care about Ruby Ride or Waco, my interest (as it pertains to this thread) is limited to Claude Dallas and the story, as I understand it from reading "Give A Boy A Gun".

I NEVER use the term "jack booted thugs".

Jeff

What I can't understand is why you refuse to believe that Pogue was possibly a dangerous individual. Reputations don't create themselves, Pogue had a bad one according to virtually everyone. This doesn't mean he deserved to die, however he wore a badge and strapped on a gun. If he was unable to do his job without abusing his power it was only a matter of time before he was called on it. Law enforcement officers are not all powerful despite the fact that some seem to feel that they are. I agree that the best way to deal with the law is to be polite and respectful, however when the law is abusive/rude I can honestly say that I would have a very hard time convicting someone who fought back in such a case if I where serving on a jury. Nothing pisse$ me off more than power hungry individuals in authority that try to bully those they are supposed to be protecting. These rotten eggs make life harder and more dangerous for those who wear a badge without a chip on their shoulder.

Let me tell you about my experience with Bill Pogue. I was returning from an unsuccesfull hunt on Juniper Mt. In southern Idaho. Eighty miles of two track from the nearest hard road, phone or any other type of help, Pogue stepped into the road and stopped me. No game in the open pick up, empty rifle cased behind the seat. After he searched the truck, he seemed angry he had found no reason to arrest me. He began to jab me in the chest with his left fingers while working the hammer on his revolver with his right. As he backed me away from my truck, I remembered the old Viet Nam feeling of "today I will die". He constantly berated me with taunts of "Don't like it, huh boy" and "What are you going to do about, boy" I believed then and believe now he was looking for an excuse to kill me. I made a silent pledge to myself, and never told any one about it, the next time I saw him in the desert I would kill him.

When Dallas shot him, he was working the hammer on his revolver. Over 300 people were prepared to testify to sinliar events.

Remember, when he went after Dallas, he was acting on behalf of a rancher's son who claimed the area as his own, private trapping domain. Remember Stevens never saw what happened with Pogue but did testify when Elms emerged from the tent his revlover was drawn. Remember also, Stevens was never charged with anything even though he admitted to helping Dallas dispose of Elms' body. Dallas should have been nominated for citizen of the year

Alonzo
Some here will not believe you, because you do not have a badge. I believe you.
art

I was beginning to think that Alonzo's post had put an end to this discussion.

The only thing I will say is this. If Pogue was as out of control as many say he was, you have to wonder about his supervisors. Either they were sitting on their thumbs, or they were part of a system that didn't allow them to know what was going on, or to effectively deal with it if they did. A tragedy in any event. With the power inherent in law enforcement, and the potential for its abuse, a system that doesn't balance accountability to the public, with effective law enforcement, and officers' rights as employees including safety, is a formula for disaster.

Paul

When I worked for Montana F&G in the '50s and '60, warden Jim F's bosses knew very well that he was a killer thirsting for a victim, but they liked the fact that he made "a lot of pinches" � never mind how questionable some of those pinches were. I often heard said of him "he's a good warden," even from those who privately opined that he was eager for the opportunity to kill somebody "justifiably." I have no trouble whatever in imagining a very likely scenario in which someone had to kill Jim to keep from being killed. Luckily, that never happened.

He was later convicted of killing a bighorn sheep in Idaho and bringing it in as a Montana kill. The department fired him but later was forced by a judge to rehire him with full back pay. In the interim, he flew "bush" for a local flying service � without, it turned-out, a pilot's license. He was killed in a 'plane crash some years later.

He was a disaster in more ways than one. He cast a very ugly shadow on wardens and the department. He didn't inspire either respect for or compliance with Montana's game laws. Quite the opposite � there were those (I knew several) who'd make it a point to violate game laws as a direct result of their antipathy toward Jim F and the department.

To my way of thinking, the term "good warden" applied much more accurately to guys like Clyde Howard and Stuart Markle, in the same district as Jim F at that time. Clyde was an old-timer when I knew him � an effective warden of whom a judge said that after trying Clyde's cases for two or three decades, he couldn't remember a defendant who wouldn't shake hands with Clyde after the trial. Both Clyde and Stuart made their share of "pinches," all right � and got along well with Montana hunters and fishermen.

To Jim, everyone who had a license was a violator who just happened not to have been caught yet. Everyone else, of course, was even worse (not even a license).

Any meeting between two outlaw enemies far from the nearest paved road is crammed full of potential for violent confrontation and crime totally independent of and unrelated to any other crime. From this distance of years and miles, with no video tape to view and two key witnesses unable to testify, the truth and extent of Dallas's culpability is impossible to determine. I could as easily see his side as Pogue's and Elms's.

So (except for me) we have only our opinions, formed mainly on the bases of existing biases. I don't know and can't guess how justified or how guilty Dallas is. I don't envy those who so hastily and freely opine for or against him.

.

Excellent post, Mr. Howell.

Rubin Carter,Geranamo Pratt and Randy Weaver were all victims.

If interested, search for a Hardcover copy of the book:

Outlaw: The True story of Claude Dallas by Jeff Long 1985, 239 pages

No better book exemplifies the mind of the deer poacher than this one, which deals with a deer poacher
who lives off the land, kills want he needs and pitches his tent where he pleases. Describes a Dodge City
shootout between a mountain man and 2 dedicated game wardens. Chronicles the 2-year manhunt that
followed. One of the best books on the subject.

One thing I can say, is that Claude Dallas did not live off the land or kill only what he needed.

Thought some might find this interesting......

From the Accurate Forum:

Dallas thread

All I can say is, 20 some years spent in jail, two dead LEOS...........ALL OVER SOME STINKING BOBCATS!!!!!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

MtnHtr

Well Claudes out from Orofino Idaho.I think the books suck in there opinions slanted of course.He did not get convicted on the first count.
I knew Bill Pogue through my off logging job in the winter for a Supermarket (Smiths Food King at the time) as I was a night stocker and cashier.Bill came in almost every morning and my job was to be nice.Well he was a big man with an attitude as most Idaho Fish and Game Officers have.

I also went to school with the prosecuter in Caldwell at the time.Grew up with him and he is now in North Idaho.We have talked this over 100's of times and we don't agree.

A name I haven't seen yet is Craig Carver.It was his trailer the apprehended Claude at with the Swat type raid.Good friends.A loner like Claude but some are that way after Nam and it will do that to some as a Marine Corp Recon.I worked with Craig two years in the woods neer Cascade.He lived in a lean-too in 3-feet of snow and the owner/logger offered him the bunk house and he refused.Finally he did get a 15 ft trailer to go with his 50 Chevy pick-up converted to 4X4.

I'm not going to give my opinion as it is contrair to others with only TV or News reports but I must say.."What if" you were approached and threatened from a long time dispute in which the warden lost the first battle in court and "Maybe" had it out for you and you felt your life was in danger.

Like I said...He was "Not" convicted on the first count and had he not finished them off he would have been a free man.

No sides..My opinion from knowing the parties involved.

Jayco

Jayco,

Good post seasoned with some practical knowledge of some of the participants.

I agree with Mt. Hunter it all seems like a waste over a couple of bobcats!

There was a thread awhile back on LEO's and their integrity or lack thereof. Some of our LEO's and retired LEO's had their feelings hurt about how some on the board view LEO's today.

That to me seems to be the trouble, LEO's serve a vital need in our society so it is vital that they be above reproach and be of really good character.

Know a guy that just retired from the Troopers here, a finer man was never made, very honest, very decent, very firm, he served with distinction and was respected by many.

On that same force there are guys that are nothing but a bully with a badge and a gun. IMO they do great damage to the general reputation of the good LEO's and to our community at large.

The numbers don't compute we need more LEO's than there are good men to fill the postion so we get a cross section of society just as in every profession.

But most professions don't have the impact either positive or negative that a LEO can have on the community.

The uniform and the badge should arbitrarily be granted respect IMO, but there's a man behind both, it seems to me it's up to him to see that he represents himself to the community so that respect is enhanced rather than diminished.

I see it kinda like what's going on in baseball currently, maybe many or most of the players don't use steroids, but if that's true they should be at the front of the pack calling for the removal of the guys who do. If they are not I see them as adding to the conspiracy by their silence.

I feel the same way about LEO's I can't thank the good ones enough for their service, but for the bad ones, I can only hope there's a spot in hell 10 degrees hotter for them.

The truly good and decent LEO's need to do a better job IMO of policing their own ranks and weeding out the guys that are antagonistic and abusive. Only then will their whole industry get the respect and admiration that they desire.

This in no way condones the killing of two guys doing their job, regardless of how they were doing it. But if what some of you posters that live there claim, that Pogue was running off at the mouth about taking Dallas out is true I'd say the Elms fellow was damn unlucky to be partnered up with him that day, as I have neither heard or read anything negative on Elms.

Again Mt. Hunter summed it up best, all over some stinking bobcats, nobody should be worried about dieing or going to jail over either. Again my thanks to all the good LEO's out there that serve and have served, this was not meant to be disparaging to you or your profession. Just my view, YMMV. 1ak

Did you file a complaint with ID F&G?

If not, why not?

If so, what was the outcome?

If I had had the same experience, I would have filed a complaint and got the local newspaper/television stations interested in this renegade conservation officer. Heck, I would probably have filed a complaint with the county sheriff.

Thankfully, I have never met a conservation officer that wasn't professional. Pushy perhaps, but not threatening in any way.

I'm pro-law enforcement, so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are dealing with a known offender, such as in Dallas' case.

Jeff

Shoulda read all the posts before I posted.......my bad.

The points I was trying to make had already been made by guys far more eloquent than myself. Sorry for the waste of bandwidth. 1ak

260
As someone that has been hassled on more than one occassion by more than one officer, I have filed formal complaints against two fish and game officers. Both had serious actions taken against them... they were moved to different jurisdictions. I believe little changed beyond that.
art

Art same thing happened in this neck of the woods. Not me but two guys I know well had the same officer really give em grief over nothing (they don't know each other and it was separate incidences) One of the guys is older and can be abrasive so I wondered about if he brought any of it on himself, but still the actions the F&G guy took were overly vindictive in my mind.

Situation #1. My friend had his cub up the haul road and was out with some relatives getting ready to hunt caribou. The officer marched up to them at Coldfoot without a rifle anywhere in sight and demanded to see their hunting licenses. According to my friend no "Hey guys how's it going or Hey are you guys getting ready to go hunting." Just a real serious tone and I'll need to see your licenses. As they were hanging out at the airport my bud refused him said " I don't need a license to stand on airport property" Later on when they were hunting the guy actually buzzed them in his cub while they were making a stalk and ran off the bou they were after. Probably didn't handle the airport scenario as well as could be hoped for, but I think interferring with a guys hunt is against the law for most of us, but I guess not the F&G guys. My buddy turned him in and filed a complaint.

#2. Another guy that bowhunts up there killed a moose and while field dressing nicked the uretha and spilled some urine on some meat. He cut the tainted meat out and left it with the backbone and gut pile. He got nabbed by the same officer for wanton waste, even though he claimed it was a very small amount of meat, but I guess he did screw up kinda as he left it right by the gutpile instead of flinging it off in the brush. They took his moose and fined him, he finally got it back (didn't think it was the same moose though) and got his name cleared after hiring an attorney. But was still pretty disillusioned about the whole deal.

On follow up all either one of them ever heard about the officer was that he had been reprimanded and assigned to a new location. Maybe that's enough but they were left shaking their heads and wondering how much of a reprimand the guy actually received. But hey he's out of that area so that's a good thing IMO as I hunt there sometimes too. Seems to me that the older generation of F&G guys were just better guys, more into hunting themselves and enjoyed seeing other guys do so too and the younger guys just don't seem as personable on the whole to me or as friendly. But maybe it's just me as I've gotten older.

Formal complaints must have about the same outcome everywhere. Several years back there was a possum sherrif here that we legaly ran off. He was reassigned somewhere in south Texas so he was just somebody else's problem where ever he landed.

This guy was a real piece of work. Though he was Wyatt Earp or something.

Only simi personal dealing I had with him was him arresting my kid for the following:

Boy, driving his pickup, pulls off the public road into my drive. He is not on the pavement or blocking traffic but is on the road r.o.w. Sees a deer out in our pasture. One day before season opens so he picks up his rifle, magazine only loaded, and looks at deer through the scope. Just looks. Possum Sherrif driveing down road sees him, stops and arrests him for hunting on public road. (Illegal in Texas to hunt on public road or to fire a gun in, along or across one while hunting)

We went to court and the JP dismissed the charge. PO'd the possum sherrif something terrible. He had it in for us from then until he left the country.


BCR

My only experience with an Idaho warden involved one whose attitude didn't show until I had to kill a moose that was attacking my wife.

We were spending our honeymoon summer (1960) on Jay Point lookout in the Powell district of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. A young bull moose started hanging around the lookout. We learned later that he'd been hand-fed by the folks who'd manned that lookout the two preceding summers. One summer, he'd killed the lookout couple's dog. The summer before we were there, he'd kept the lookout girl in the outhouse all day because she'd gone there early in the morning without any handout for him. Every time she tried to come out of the outhouse, he ran her back into it.

We knew none of this until after the incident that ruined my friendly relationship with warden Grimes.

I'd worked out of Powell Ranger Station for several weeks before we went up to the lookout. Grimes � a bachelor � came down to the ranger station each morning to free-load breakfast at the cook shack. When he learned that I had experience making movies, he glommed onto me like a long-lost buddy, constantly asking questions about shooting movies. (He had a movie camera and wanted to make good movies with it.) We spent a lot of hours talking movie techniques.

The young bull charged me a couple of times, but I turned each charge with a fast draw and a quick .44 magnum shot just over his head. I called the dispatcher at the ranger station and reported the problem, and the dispatcher said that he'd notify Grimes, who'd probably bring salt blocks up to bait the moose away from Jay Point.

The next morning, my wife drew the bull's attention as she made her circuitous way (as far from him as she could get) between the outhouse and the lookout. Standing at the base of the tower, I threw rocks at him to draw his attention to me, but he stayed intent on my wife. When he charged her, I fired a shot over his head to turn him. That didn't work, so I shot him in the head. I called the dispatcher and reported the incident. Grimes, he told me, had just left on horseback with a couple of salt blocks on a pack mule.

Grimes came along later that morning. He'd heard my .44 while he was packing the mule. Boy! Was he furious! I can only imagine what he'd've done if I hadn't been packing my Blackhawk in a Keith holster and obviously knew how to use it. He came back twice on later days to harass me, obviously on the thin edge of losing control of his anger.

On his last "visit," he said that the incident was entirely my fault. In the meantime, the dispatcher had finally told me of the moose's previous problem at the lookout � and a couple of other details that Grimes didn't suspect that I knew. I answered that Idaho F&G had fostered the problem by salting Jay Point. He angrily denied that the department had ever salted Jay Point.

"Oh, no?" I asked. "Then who was it who air-dropped two salt blocks through this lookout two winters ago?"

"That was me," he confessed with obvious embarrassment and completely deflated.

He'd kicked two blocks of cattle salt out of a low-flying Piper or Aeronca. The first block � lower � had bashed through the shutter on the west side of the lookout, skidded across the floor, bounced-off the alidade stand and one of the low cupboards, then bashed though the door and its shutter. The second block had taken-out all the rafters on the north side of the lookout, from west to east. The windows, shutters, rafters, roof, and the cupboard and outside doors had been replaced by the Forest Service, of course, but splintery skid gouges still showed where that one block had torn the floor and the side of the alidade stand.

Once he learned that I knew how he'd earned the nickname "Bomber" Grimes, he didn't pester us any more. Until then, he danced around like a monkey with a full bladder and a clogged penis, obviously wanting to "hang" me but frustrated by the fact that I had good cause and a good witness. It was downright comical to see how my reminder of those devastating salt blocks took all the fight out of him instantaneously.

.

KEN HOWELL - "He'd kicked two blocks of cattle salt out of a low-flying Piper or Aeronca. The first block � lower � had bashed through the shutter on the west side of the lookout, skidded across the floor, bounced-off the alidade stand and one of the low cupboards, then bashed though the door and its shutter. The second block had taken-out all the rafters on the north side of the lookout, from west to east. The windows, shutters, rafters, roof, and the cupboard and outside doors had been replaced by the Forest Service, of course, but splintery skid gouges still showed where that one block had torn the floor and the side of the alidade stand."
___________________________________________________

Ken, speaking of movie making, that would make a great scene in a flick entitled "Fish & Game Joins Animal House." I can see it now.......................... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

L.W.

Did you do anything more when the action taken didn't meet your expectations? If not, why not? It sounds like AK F&G used the same solution as the Catholic Church when dealing with employees who were out of line.

I have always found that when you have had a negative interaction with the employee of an organization, going to the top of the hierarchy gets the quickest results, since those people don't like to see negative stories in the local news paper.

I guess that things are different in New England and in the mid-west, since I've hunted for over 35 years and have never been threatened by a F&G official. In fact, I can only recall a couple dozen times that I have been stopped for a license/harvest check during those 35 + years and can only recall 1 CO who was anything but professional. They weren't always friendly, but, other than that 1 exception, they were always professional.

Jeff

260
In short, no; I did nothing more. But from the employer's perspective, don't you have to give someone another chance? What would the LEO union have to say about being fired on the first complaint?

I have been stopped many times to look at my licenses, etc, both as an individual and in my business. I have no tickets or arrests to my credit. I do not want any retaliation, which I view as distinctly possible with the tight-knit LEO group. I believe I have been stopped as many times in a single year as you have during your entire hunting time...
art

I guess that I must have an honest look to me! I always figure that if I'm going to pick a fight to address what I consider a wrong, I've got to be willing to stand up to anything that comes my way.

When I was in NH last year attending to my Mother's and Grandmother's estates, I found time every week to go trout fishing a few times. 1 Conservation Officer stopped me to check my license/harvest a couple of times during mid-week, when I was the only person fishing. He was very professional, but not friendly in the least. The last time that he stopped me, his boss was riding with him. I had just come out of the woods with a limit of native brook trout and they got out of their truck and "boxed" me, as though I might be a threat with my loaded 9' crappie rod. I thought that that was bit much, but they were professional and as with any stop, the LEO doesn't know what he/she is going to face. I smiled and said "Yes, Sir" and "No, Sir" to all of their questions. I think that folks tend to forget that LEOs have to deal with people who are at their worst on a regular basis, so it tends to influence their way of dealing with all people over time. Being a LEO seems like a thankless job and 1 that I wouldn't want, but am glad that some are willing put up with the BS and stand between my family and the bad guys.

Jeff

In previous discussions about law enforcement, I have made the point that individual LEOs differ greatly, as do agencies, so it is hard to make valid generalizations. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Dallas situation occurred over two decades ago, as did several of the personal anecdotes reported here. There have been enormous changes in law enforcement over the past few decades, even the past ten years.

Yes, it would be hard to fire an officer for a first offense, unless it were exceptionally serious, but these days most LE agencies would conduct an internal investigation and start progressive discipline. If a pattern of misconduct continued, the employee would eventually get fired. The employee would effectively fire himself, and there is a point at which a union or civil service can't protect him. They just provide procedural protections anyhow, they can't prevent discipline from occurring if it is justified. Another thing to consider is that these days if an officer gets too bizarre, like mouthing off about beating or killing people, he is likely to face a mandatory psychological evaluation. The two LE agencies I have been associated with have been very professional, and wouldn't put up the sort of thing Pogue has been accused of. OTOH, when I was a kid we had a family friend who was a highly regarded police sergeant. He used to brag about harassing gays, and prisoners "accidently" falling down stairs. That was in the '50s, and it was just considered business as usual in those days. Times change, and sometimes they even change for the better.

Paul

Paul
A few years ago I was at a SOuthern dove shoot. A county sheriff drove his squad car out into the field as an invited guest. He told a story that had supposedly happened on the way to the shoot.

He had stopped an out-of-state woman for a traffic violation. She did not present herself well claiming she was singled out so he presented her a ticket. She claimed loudly that he had given her the ticket because she was out-of-state and black.

His answer was, "No mam, you being from out-of-state had nothing to do with it!" Most there found the story very funny.
art

MMarketello, as usual, just as with the lies the left liberals on teeeveee tell you about those evil semi-automatic guns they --and you -- want to ban, you've again swallowed hook, line, and sinker, the left wing pap fed you by the propagandists who made that "special."

Nice!
I would imagine it was more of a case of me trying to do some reading and watching the special at the same time, and hearing it wrong. If you want to see a consprircy, have at it.