• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Jeffrey S. Ryan of Breckenridge writes:

It is understandable that Bill Johnson found the story told him by crusty landowner Bea Bartle to be irresistible ("Born to this land, she just can’t forgive some their trespasses,” Rocky Mountain News, 7 September 2007) . Who wouldn’t want to hear how this colorful and fearless woman single-handedly confronted a band of “poachers” on her land, armed only with an unloaded .38 revolver and her native grit? Having represented the one hunter who went to trial, though, and having heard the testimony and become intimately familiar with all the reports filed, I’m afraid that Mr. Johnson’s readers got only a romanticized, and largely false, version of what happened way back on 23 October 2005. My client, who insisted on his innocence, demanded a trial so the truth would come out and his reputation be vindicated.
This man, who has over 30 years experience hunting, was part of a group of four hunters who went to Park County along with the teenage daughters of two of his fellow hunters. They were camped legally, and licensed to hunt. To read Bea Bartle’s account, one would come away with the impression that these four hunters were poaching on her land. In fact, it was unchallenged that one of the hunters shot a bull elk on public property, but only wounded it. The entire party immediately went to look for the elk, which had by that time jumped a fence and wound up on Ms. Bartle’s property. Nowhere in Mr. Johnson’s article does he inform his readers that Colorado wildlife law requires that a hunter immediately pursue a wounded animal. This is exactly what the hunting party did. And while the law also requires that they inform a private landowner of their presence on the landowner’s property, in this case Ms. Bartle arrived so quickly there was no time to comply with that requirement. Ms. Bartle tells Mr. Johnson that her gun was unloaded, but the hunters and the teenage girls did not know this. The girls were terrified until my client persuaded Ms. Bartle to put away her gun.
Most galling, Ms. Bartle claims my client “Got off on a technicality” when he went to trial. She apparently failed to inform Mr. Johnson that my client did not shoot the elk, and in fact never even had his gun out of its case when the incident occurred.
From my first day on this case, I was puzzled why my client, who never fired a shot and only tried to follow the law, was being prosecuted. The prosecution’s case was so weak, in fact, that it was dismissed by the court before we even had to put on any defense.
My client did not get off on a technicality: He was innocent.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

And you probably still charged him out the yang......

Are we supposed to be suprised that Bill Johnson made some crap up for his worthless article? That guy lies in every piece he writes...and still keeps a job!

I used to live in the same area and I never had a problem with hunter. I did have mountain bikers routinely tresspassing including one group that had a picnic on my front porch. They tried to tell me that it was a public use hut! The sign stating private road and the cable across the gate didn't give them a clue. Horseback riders and hikers were also a problem. The hikers, horse riders, and mountain bikers routinely left their trash, power bar wrappers and cigarett butts too. But never hunters or OHV riders for that matter.

Bill Johnson continues to present half truths as they fit his agenda.

POST A COMMENT

• Alleged rape victims merit day in court
• Salazar should back accomplished jurist
• Let Idahoans decide Craig’s fate
• Unlikely Stein will ever give Bush credit
• Drivers are swell
• Honor jurist Lindsey
• Honor jurist Lindsey
• News coverage upside down