I guess no more speculation on this one. I can't grasp it being called a trophy due to the way it was harvested, to each his own I suppose. That fact that it was likely illegal compounds my view even further.
I think he should have his hunting rights revoked for life myself. I also think the people that helped him should be charged and prosecuted as well. They assisted him for some cash which is pretty disgusting. There is not even a small chance that the locals didn't know this was out of the legal hunting unit.
Clowns like this make us all look bad...
He paid big bucks for the "Any Bull" tag. I would assume that means ANY bull as long as you are following the hunting times and other regulations for that area. If its open for Elk you can shoot Any Bull. ??? Not defending the guy just wondering did the tag say only good in branch antlered units?The tag specified any bull elk in east side GMUs open to branch antlered bull hunting. The ellensburg GMU doesn't have any branch antlered bull opportunities
He paid big bucks for the "Any Bull" tag. I would assume that means ANY bull as long as you are following the hunting times and other regulations for that area. If its open for Elk you can shoot Any Bull. ??? Not defending the guy just wondering did the tag say only good in branch antlered units?
I guess no more speculation on this one. I can't grasp it being called a trophy due to the way it was harvested, to each his own I suppose. That fact that it was likely illegal compounds my view even further.
I think he should have his hunting rights revoked for life myself. I also think the people that helped him should be charged and prosecuted as well. They assisted him for some cash which is pretty disgusting. There is not even a small chance that the locals didn't know this was out of the legal hunting unit.
Clowns like this make us all look bad...
Let the court system do its job before you make judgements like that. That article had very little research put into it. Looks like the guy just read the thread that was put on here. No wonder at all legal action is going to be used. A few guys on here, and one in particular have spread information that is not accurate.
Seems unlikely someone with a tag link that would risk a chance of getting in trouble at least you'd hope not
I guess no more speculation on this one. I can't grasp it being called a trophy due to the way it was harvested, to each his own I suppose. That fact that it was likely illegal compounds my view even further.
I think he should have his hunting rights revoked for life myself. I also think the people that helped him should be charged and prosecuted as well. They assisted him for some cash which is pretty disgusting. There is not even a small chance that the locals didn't know this was out of the legal hunting unit.
Clowns like this make us all look bad...
Let the court system do its job before you make judgements like that. That article had very little research put into it. Looks like the guy just read the thread that was put on here. No wonder at all legal action is going to be used. A few guys on here, and one in particular have spread information that is not accurate.
Seems unlikely someone with a tag link that would risk a chance of getting in trouble at least you'd hope not
I'm not going to comment on any details while this case is open or before the person on this forum gets served. I will tell you great steps were taken to do the right thing.
Seems unlikely someone with a tag link that would risk a chance of getting in trouble at least you'd hope not
I'm not going to comment on any details while this case is open or before the person on this forum gets served. I will tell you great steps were taken to do the right thing.
And the right thing was? :chuckle:
Seems unlikely someone with a tag link that would risk a chance of getting in trouble at least you'd hope not
I'm not going to comment on any details while this case is open or before the person on this forum gets served. I will tell you great steps were taken to do the right thing.
And the right thing was? :chuckle:
Welcome to the site. Pretty big first couple of posts.
And who is getting served if you don't mind me asking.
I believe a phone conversation if in fact went down is no excuse on where you killed the animal. Come on we all know where and when we can hunt and ifnwe don't we shouldn't be hunting. Like I said though who really knows all the facts this is between the hunter and the state officials now hownit stands. I hope though for the hunter he was in fact doing the right thing
I believe a phone conversation if in fact went down is no excuse on where you killed the animal. Come on we all know where and when we can hunt and ifnwe don't we shouldn't be hunting. Like I said though who really knows all the facts this is between the hunter and the state officials now hownit stands. I hope though for the hunter he was in fact doing the right thing
You have every right to that opinion. My opinion is that if you are unsure of something you should be able to call your well paid public servant that is supposed to be the professional on the subject and get clarification.
I will say I would rather be in the hunters shoes facing that legal issue, than facing the civil issue the guy will be dealing with for publicly dragging the hunter through the mud. Win lose or draw it's going to be a really long drawn out EXPENSIVE situation.
I believe a phone conversation if in fact went down is no excuse on where you killed the animal. Come on we all know where and when we can hunt and ifnwe don't we shouldn't be hunting. Like I said though who really knows all the facts this is between the hunter and the state officials now hownit stands. I hope though for the hunter he was in fact doing the right thing
You have every right to that opinion. My opinion is that if you are unsure of something you should be able to call your well paid public servant that is supposed to be the professional on the subject and get clarification.
I will say I would rather be in the hunters shoes facing that legal issue, than facing the civil issue the guy will be dealing with for publicly dragging the hunter through the mud. Win lose or draw it's going to be a really long drawn out EXPENSIVE situation.
Common sense would seem to dictate that it's foolish to talk about an issue on a public forum with legal action pending, regardless of whether you side with the plaintiff or the defendant.
You state you signed up to this forum to hopefully clear some things up.
Please, by all means, clear things up.
Seems unlikely someone with a tag link that would risk a chance of getting in trouble at least you'd hope not
I'm not going to comment on any details while this case is open or before the person on this forum gets served. I will tell you great steps were taken to do the right thing.
And the right thing was? :chuckle:
Welcome to the site. Pretty big first couple of posts.
And who is getting served if you don't mind me asking.
Thank you for the welcome. I signed up to this forum to hopefully clear things up some. There has been a lot of false information posted on this site. A call was made to the game department asking if it was ok to shoot the bull where it located. After Morgan Grant from the game department checked into it another phone conversation took place and the hunters were told they absolutely could harvest that bull with that tag at that location. If in fact the info given was wrong the game department is the one to be blamed.
As for the person on here that will be dealing with legal issues, I can't tell you who that is at this point. But if you read the thread on this topic that was removed it would be really easy for you to guess who.
End result of this whole debacle?- You or I will not have to obey GMU boundaries, because apparently they mean nothing.Only if you have enough money...
I sincerely hope this mount on the wall justifies the means...
My guess is people have joined the forum to distract or draw attention away from there involvement in a messy situation . The fact that people have posted the bull was shot in 334 is true ,the involved parties aren't denying that . Whether or not they knew it was illegal or if they had permission is what the courts will decide . My guess is a few new members are also old members . I know that there was plenty of peacocking and discriminating evidence flying around in pm's . The bottom line is this whole thing is a mess and the defendant has deep enough pockets that the whole thing wont matter much to him . My hopes are the whole thing is resolved before Sept 1st in regards to the 2016 auction tag . I imagine if found guilty he could just gift it to a friend all though I'm not sure if that's legal .:yeah: Exactly!
I read some of the posts in the other thread with mild interest.:yeah: I didn't bother reading the last thread for the most part, what a mess!
Seeing the story laid out in that article, and if the facts are as they appear, all I have to say is WOW :yike:
So much wrong about the whole scenario.
How does an anonymous screen name get sued?
QuoteThese rules are subject to change at any time for any reason, I will update this topic when there is a change.
The owners of this forum reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint, legal, or lawful action arising from your use of this forum.
Thank You,
Forum Management Team
How does an anonymous screen name get sued?
Not sure if you're joking or not, but this is straight out of the forum rules:QuoteThese rules are subject to change at any time for any reason, I will update this topic when there is a change.
The owners of this forum reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint, legal, or lawful action arising from your use of this forum.
Thank You,
Forum Management Team
Ironic that the day after Dale closes down the thread, this article comes out and starts a whole new one.
Ironic that the day after Dale closes down the thread, this article comes out and starts a whole new one.
Not ironic, disrespectful.
Ironic that the day after Dale closes down the thread, this article comes out and starts a whole new one.
Not ironic, disrespectful.
The Yakima Herald disrespected Dale? Really?
So ppl are being threatened with lawsuites..topics being closed..women have their own special board... Wow this forum isnt what it was when i signed on
Ironic that the day after Dale closes down the thread, this article comes out and starts a whole new one.
Not ironic, disrespectful.
The Yakima Herald disrespected Dale? Really?
I guess you did say article, I mis read that. I meant , the need to post this article knowing damn well it would be a continuation of the recently locked thread is disrespectful to this forum and Bearpaw.
Ironic that the day after Dale closes down the thread, this article comes out and starts a whole new one.
Not ironic, disrespectful.
The Yakima Herald disrespected Dale? Really?
I guess you did say article, I mis read that.
So ppl are being threatened with lawsuites..topics being closed..women have their own special board... Wow this forum isnt what it was when i signed on
Ironic that the day after Dale closes down the thread, this article comes out and starts a whole new one.
Not ironic, disrespectful.
The Yakima Herald disrespected Dale? Really?
I guess you did say article, I mis read that. I meant , the need to post this article knowing damn well it would be a continuation of the recently locked thread is disrespectful to this forum and Bearpaw.
I agree. There's a reason the other one was shut down. Special thanks to JDHasty for reviving this hot mess.
:bash:
Curious to know if all the people posting on Facebook regarding this case will be sued too?How about the Yakima Herald? Or the people on 24hourcampfire?
The only argument i would have in response to the guy who says he knows permission from the warden..
If it was legal to shoot why haul it and gut it in another unit?
Anyone can sue anyone else, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason. Whether or not it is successful is another issue, but at a minimum the party being sued will likely have some financial consequences. To an extent our legal system is a matter of "how much justice can you afford? " If someone with deep pockets wants to make someone else miserable, it's quite doable.
Well actually, I have to say, I was glad that someone posted a link to the Yakima Herald article. I may not have seen it otherwise. I probably would have posted it myself if I had come across it first. This is also being discussed on Facebook and I'm sure there are comments being posted in the Yakima Herald as well.
The use of money to justify illegal and unethical behavior will always occur, but that doesn't make it right.Well actually, I have to say, I was glad that someone posted a link to the Yakima Herald article. I may not have seen it otherwise. I probably would have posted it myself if I had come across it first. This is also being discussed on Facebook and I'm sure there are comments being posted in the Yakima Herald as well.
thanks for the link to the article. I find it interesting how this one animal and hunter has created such a stir... from a different perspective, this person has probably put into WA state conservation (financially) MORE than this entire site full of hunters combine since just 2007. I don't know him, his ethics, or how rich he is either.. This animal was a conservation tool, used to draw money from us all for a chance of a lifetime, one ticket ever year for me too! Ethics and location maybe not so much. In the end, the money this one hunter has given has most likely made a direct impact in WA and now, the state will waste most of it (i bet) toward litigation and investigation fees. Why not just fix the book to allow this to occur, after all, these raffles and auction tags are just designed to make conservation dollars as I am led to understand in all the writings right? One draw, one animal, one hunter? Is it really that bad that this old rich dude paid to play or are we just jealous and casting stones?
Again, just considering the gain from all the moneys invested, not the ethical hunting of one man position. I find it more appalling when a person of this financial affluence takes the route of posting up a 100K piece of property his millionaire buddies to hunt and not giving back, don't you?
Anyone can sue anyone else, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason. Whether or not it is successful is another issue, but at a minimum the party being sued will likely have some financial consequences. To an extent our legal system is a matter of "how much justice can you afford? " If someone with deep pockets wants to make someone else miserable, it's quite doable.
Which is why the indivual pursuing the suit should have to front the estimated costs and have the balance paid in full before leaving the courthouse if they lose, or sit in jail until it's paid.
My guess is that would reduce the backlog of cases and make people think twice before pursuing some of these BS suits. :twocents:
Interesting side note here....oh snap!
"Bullwinkle often fed at the home of Mark and Frances Chmelewski, the couple who gave him that name.
He would come into our yard and eat apples off our tree, and wed sit and watch, just meters from him, Mark Chmelewski said.
Every year wed say a little prayer that Bullwinkle would survive the hunting season because he was just such a beautiful, majestic animal."
and then after google
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/news/frances-chmelewski-is-new-kittitas-county-superior-court-judge/article_61b61d0a-162c-11e1-8f9d-001cc4c03286.html
Karma??
Wonder if that actually helps him? Can't the defense petition to bring in an unrelated judge from another county if there is some kind of conflict?Interesting side note here....oh snap!
"Bullwinkle often fed at the home of Mark and Frances Chmelewski, the couple who gave him that name.
“He would come into our yard and eat apples off our tree, and we’d sit and watch, just meters from him,” Mark Chmelewski said.
“Every year we’d say a little prayer that Bullwinkle would survive the hunting season because he was just such a beautiful, majestic animal.”"
and then after google
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/news/frances-chmelewski-is-new-kittitas-county-superior-court-judge/article_61b61d0a-162c-11e1-8f9d-001cc4c03286.html
Karma??
:yeah: I see this helping the defense in justifying a change of venue as this article and this site paints a picture of "locals" already established as prejudice towards the person facing charges.
I'm not supporting him, I'm just stating a possibility. It's painted the picture of guilty before getting a fair trial by a juror of peers.
I see this helping the defense in justifying a change of venue
Really, we're doing this again, a day after the previous lengthy topic was locked? Can't people just be happy for now that the State has filed charges and now let the process work instead of all this needless discussion over a well beaten topic?:chuckle: yea but what fun is that lol.
I hope this thread is locked quickly so it doesn't keep popping up in my "show new replies to your post" page.
Interesting side note here....
"Bullwinkle often fed at the home of Mark and Frances Chmelewski, the couple who gave him that name.
“He would come into our yard and eat apples off our tree, and we’d sit and watch, just meters from him,” Mark Chmelewski said.
“Every year we’d say a little prayer that Bullwinkle would survive the hunting season because he was just such a beautiful, majestic animal.”"
and then after google
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/news/frances-chmelewski-is-new-kittitas-county-superior-court-judge/article_61b61d0a-162c-11e1-8f9d-001cc4c03286.html
Karma??
Wonder if that actually helps him? Can't the defense petition to bring in an unrelated judge from another county if there is some kind of conflict?Interesting side note here....oh snap!
"Bullwinkle often fed at the home of Mark and Frances Chmelewski, the couple who gave him that name.
“He would come into our yard and eat apples off our tree, and we’d sit and watch, just meters from him,” Mark Chmelewski said.
“Every year we’d say a little prayer that Bullwinkle would survive the hunting season because he was just such a beautiful, majestic animal.”"
and then after google
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/news/frances-chmelewski-is-new-kittitas-county-superior-court-judge/article_61b61d0a-162c-11e1-8f9d-001cc4c03286.html
Karma??
I'm not going to comment on the legalities of it because I was not there nor the one that got supposed permission to hunt that area.You do a lot of hound hunting Brandon??
I do have a problem though with the part about how it's bad to shoot an animal in a field. Zero difference then shooting a cat out of a tree. Neither one takes any skill yet 99% of the people on this site would jump at the chance to shoot a lion in a tree. The first thread on this issue was started because guys were saying it wasn't much of a hunt. Not that it was illegal. Then that started after a page or two.
So for the guys that are saying it's not hunting get off your high horse.
I'm not going to comment on the legalities of it because I was not there nor the one that got supposed permission to hunt that area.You do a lot of hound hunting Brandon??
I do have a problem though with the part about how it's bad to shoot an animal in a field. Zero difference then shooting a cat out of a tree. Neither one takes any skill yet 99% of the people on this site would jump at the chance to shoot a lion in a tree. The first thread on this issue was started because guys were saying it wasn't much of a hunt. Not that it was illegal. Then that started after a page or two.
So for the guys that are saying it's not hunting get off your high horse.
I'm not going to comment on the legalities of it because I was not there nor the one that got supposed permission to hunt that area.You do a lot of hound hunting Brandon??
I do have a problem though with the part about how it's bad to shoot an animal in a field. Zero difference then shooting a cat out of a tree. Neither one takes any skill yet 99% of the people on this site would jump at the chance to shoot a lion in a tree. The first thread on this issue was started because guys were saying it wasn't much of a hunt. Not that it was illegal. Then that started after a page or two.
So for the guys that are saying it's not hunting get off your high horse.
Well actually, I have to say, I was glad that someone posted a link to the Yakima Herald article. I may not have seen it otherwise. I probably would have posted it myself if I had come across it first. This is also being discussed on Facebook and I'm sure there are comments being posted in the Yakima Herald as well.
thanks for the link to the article. I find it interesting how this one animal and hunter has created such a stir... from a different perspective, this person has probably put into WA state conservation (financially) MORE than this entire site full of hunters combine since just 2007. I don't know him, his ethics, or how rich he is either.. This animal was a conservation tool, used to draw money from us all for a chance of a lifetime, one ticket ever year for me too! Ethics and location maybe not so much. In the end, the money this one hunter has given has most likely made a direct impact in WA and now, the state will waste most of it (i bet) toward litigation and investigation fees. Why not just fix the book to allow this to occur, after all, these raffles and auction tags are just designed to make conservation dollars as I am led to understand in all the writings right? One draw, one animal, one hunter? Is it really that bad that this old rich dude paid to play or are we just jealous and casting stones?
Again, just considering the gain from all the moneys invested, not the ethical hunting of one man position. I find it more appalling when a person of this financial affluence takes the route of posting up a 100K piece of property his millionaire buddies to hunt and not giving back, don't you?
That article doesn't paint a great picture for hunting in general...I agree 100%.
Not a good deal any way you look at it.
I'm not going to comment on the legalities of it because I was not there nor the one that got supposed permission to hunt that area.You do a lot of hound hunting Brandon??
I do have a problem though with the part about how it's bad to shoot an animal in a field. Zero difference then shooting a cat out of a tree. Neither one takes any skill yet 99% of the people on this site would jump at the chance to shoot a lion in a tree. The first thread on this issue was started because guys were saying it wasn't much of a hunt. Not that it was illegal. Then that started after a page or two.
So for the guys that are saying it's not hunting get off your high horse.
oooo you beat me to it!
following along for the ride
Well actually, I have to say, I was glad that someone posted a link to the Yakima Herald article. I may not have seen it otherwise. I probably would have posted it myself if I had come across it first. This is also being discussed on Facebook and I'm sure there are comments being posted in the Yakima Herald as well.
thanks for the link to the article. I find it interesting how this one animal and hunter has created such a stir... from a different perspective, this person has probably put into WA state conservation (financially) MORE than this entire site full of hunters combine since just 2007. I don't know him, his ethics, or how rich he is either.. This animal was a conservation tool, used to draw money from us all for a chance of a lifetime, one ticket ever year for me too! Ethics and location maybe not so much. In the end, the money this one hunter has given has most likely made a direct impact in WA and now, the state will waste most of it (i bet) toward litigation and investigation fees. Why not just fix the book to allow this to occur, after all, these raffles and auction tags are just designed to make conservation dollars as I am led to understand in all the writings right? One draw, one animal, one hunter? Is it really that bad that this old rich dude paid to play or are we just jealous and casting stones?
Again, just considering the gain from all the moneys invested, not the ethical hunting of one man position. I find it more appalling when a person of this financial affluence takes the route of posting up a 100K piece of property his millionaire buddies to hunt and not giving back, don't you?
So should he also be able to shoot a Record Book Roosevelt in Grays Harbor, Lewis or Pacific County? If not why not? Here, let me answer that for ya: Because that South Central Washington - Big Game Raffle Tag is not good there. WTH is so hard to figure out about that.
Now, re: the "Bullwinkle" aspects of this - just because something is legal, is it a smart thing to do? Well, irrespective of the legal issues, Scott Sandsberry was talking with residents and property owners all around the area who had absolutely no idea that any law was broken. They were PO'd, and they thought that shooting this bull was wrong and they were talking to Scott Sandsberry about why they thought it was wrong, but they had no idea that the tag he used to kill the bull with came with this restriction:
South Central Washington - Big Game $ 17.00 per ticket
Elk: Any 300 or 500 series GMU open to elk hunting except GMUs not open to branch antlered bull elk hunting
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/permits/raffles/index.html
Ironic that the day after Dale closes down the thread, this article comes out and starts a whole new one.
Not ironic, disrespectful.
The Yakima Herald disrespected Dale? Really?
I guess you did say article, I mis read that. I meant , the need to post this article knowing damn well it would be a continuation of the recently locked thread is disrespectful to this forum and Bearpaw.
I agree. There's a reason the other one was shut down. Special thanks to JDHasty for reviving this hot mess.
:bash:
Due to the reason given of legal threats for removing the other thread I think this goes way past disrespectful. I am very suprised this forum continues to let this individual have access knowing his actions may lead to legal headaches for them.
In my youth, I was blessed to be on several hound "hunts" to recollar cougar with the WDFW. Some of the best memories of my teenage years!It's delicious, you won't be disappointed. Kind of like pork/chicken cross. Great in stir fry with vegies over rice. :drool:
I can tell you with full certainty that it doesn't even remotely compare to shooting an elk in the field. There is a LOT of front end work that goes into hound hunting and it's not a walk in the park mid process either.
I will have to sample cougar meat sometime to see if I am willing to kill one or not though.
I find lots of cougars in dive bars, they normally taste like cigarettes and bloody Mary's to meAwesome :chuckle:
I find lots of cougars in dive bars, they normally taste like cigarettes and bloody Mary's to me😂 hahaha
I find lots of cougars in dive bars, they normally taste like cigarettes and bloody Mary's to meNow that is funny poop right there
I find it funny that "some guy" comes on here to
1. Straighten things out
2. Says he won't say anything because it is an ongoing investigation.
3. Says how many people will be served or sued for things they have said.
and my favorite
4. Throws out a person's name from WDFW who HE says is to blame..... :chuckle:
I find it funny that "some guy" comes on here to
1. Straighten things out
2. Says he won't say anything because it is an ongoing investigation.
3. Says how many people will be served or sued for things they have said.
and my favorite
4. Throws out a person's name from WDFW who HE says is to blame..... :chuckle:
What's the internet good for if not for acting tough?
My favorite are the photos and comments by Ms. Information . :chuckle:I find it funny that "some guy" comes on here to
1. Straighten things out
2. Says he won't say anything because it is an ongoing investigation.
3. Says how many people will be served or sued for things they have said.
and my favorite
4. Throws out a person's name from WDFW who HE says is to blame..... :chuckle:
What's the internet good for if not for acting tough?
Porn
Any idea where you can buy it commercially?
Well actually, I have to say, I was glad that someone posted a link to the Yakima Herald article. I may not have seen it otherwise. I probably would have posted it myself if I had come across it first. This is also being discussed on Facebook and I'm sure there are comments being posted in the Yakima Herald as well.
thanks for the link to the article. I find it interesting how this one animal and hunter has created such a stir... from a different perspective, this person has probably put into WA state conservation (financially) MORE than this entire site full of hunters combine since just 2007. I don't know him, his ethics, or how rich he is either.. This animal was a conservation tool, used to draw money from us all for a chance of a lifetime, one ticket ever year for me too! Ethics and location maybe not so much. In the end, the money this one hunter has given has most likely made a direct impact in WA and now, the state will waste most of it (i bet) toward litigation and investigation fees. Why not just fix the book to allow this to occur, after all, these raffles and auction tags are just designed to make conservation dollars as I am led to understand in all the writings right? One draw, one animal, one hunter? Is it really that bad that this old rich dude paid to play or are we just jealous and casting stones?
Again, just considering the gain from all the moneys invested, not the ethical hunting of one man position. I find it more appalling when a person of this financial affluence takes the route of posting up a 100K piece of property his millionaire buddies to hunt and not giving back, don't you?
So should he also be able to shoot a Record Book Roosevelt in Grays Harbor, Lewis or Pacific County? If not why not? Here, let me answer that for ya: Because that South Central Washington - Big Game Raffle Tag is not good there. WTH is so hard to figure out about that.
Now, re: the "Bullwinkle" aspects of this - just because something is legal, is it a smart thing to do? Well, irrespective of the legal issues, Scott Sandsberry was talking with residents and property owners all around the area who had absolutely no idea that any law was broken. They were PO'd, and they thought that shooting this bull was wrong and they were talking to Scott Sandsberry about why they thought it was wrong, but they had no idea that the tag he used to kill the bull with came with this restriction:
South Central Washington - Big Game $ 17.00 per ticket
Elk: Any 300 or 500 series GMU open to elk hunting except GMUs not open to branch antlered bull elk hunting
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/permits/raffles/index.html
again I don't agree with the whole thing he did. was just saying that he definitely has contributed large sums to the state and now they will just use it up in court proceedings. reviews show suspect activities since 2007, why blame just him? allowing continued contributions from 2007 forward is frankly a state swing and a miss. since this raffle and auction is all about the money, the state WDFW didn't step in and prevent his participation after past adjudicated activity. To me, its not hard to understand JD, my point was either they (state) cares or they are just going thru motions, he was as I understand, forced off lands for a couple years by courts after 2007/8 raffle/auction tag episode yet still allowed to throw money into the state hoppers and participate in follow on auctions and raffles, that was the major state miss. Now, the state industry will waste money, not using it for conservation in this process. This person has as I read in articles, a fairly unlimited resources to dip from, how much will the state spend to pursue him? I would think that WDFW raffles and auctions programs could restrict individual participation and everyone moves on and conservation dollars are used for conservation. I get it upsets everyone here, myself included, but I blame more than the act or individual here...
Well actually, I have to say, I was glad that someone posted a link to the Yakima Herald article. I may not have seen it otherwise. I probably would have posted it myself if I had come across it first. This is also being discussed on Facebook and I'm sure there are comments being posted in the Yakima Herald as well.
thanks for the link to the article. I find it interesting how this one animal and hunter has created such a stir... from a different perspective, this person has probably put into WA state conservation (financially) MORE than this entire site full of hunters combine since just 2007. I don't know him, his ethics, or how rich he is either.. This animal was a conservation tool, used to draw money from us all for a chance of a lifetime, one ticket ever year for me too! Ethics and location maybe not so much. In the end, the money this one hunter has given has most likely made a direct impact in WA and now, the state will waste most of it (i bet) toward litigation and investigation fees. Why not just fix the book to allow this to occur, after all, these raffles and auction tags are just designed to make conservation dollars as I am led to understand in all the writings right? One draw, one animal, one hunter? Is it really that bad that this old rich dude paid to play or are we just jealous and casting stones?
Again, just considering the gain from all the moneys invested, not the ethical hunting of one man position. I find it more appalling when a person of this financial affluence takes the route of posting up a 100K piece of property his millionaire buddies to hunt and not giving back, don't you?
So should he also be able to shoot a Record Book Roosevelt in Grays Harbor, Lewis or Pacific County? If not why not? Here, let me answer that for ya: Because that South Central Washington - Big Game Raffle Tag is not good there. WTH is so hard to figure out about that.
Now, re: the "Bullwinkle" aspects of this - just because something is legal, is it a smart thing to do? Well, irrespective of the legal issues, Scott Sandsberry was talking with residents and property owners all around the area who had absolutely no idea that any law was broken. They were PO'd, and they thought that shooting this bull was wrong and they were talking to Scott Sandsberry about why they thought it was wrong, but they had no idea that the tag he used to kill the bull with came with this restriction:
South Central Washington - Big Game $ 17.00 per ticket
Elk: Any 300 or 500 series GMU open to elk hunting except GMUs not open to branch antlered bull elk hunting
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/permits/raffles/index.html
again I don't agree with the whole thing he did. was just saying that he definitely has contributed large sums to the state and now they will just use it up in court proceedings. reviews show suspect activities since 2007, why blame just him? allowing continued contributions from 2007 forward is frankly a state swing and a miss. since this raffle and auction is all about the money, the state WDFW didn't step in and prevent his participation after past adjudicated activity. To me, its not hard to understand JD, my point was either they (state) cares or they are just going thru motions, he was as I understand, forced off lands for a couple years by courts after 2007/8 raffle/auction tag episode yet still allowed to throw money into the state hoppers and participate in follow on auctions and raffles, that was the major state miss. Now, the state industry will waste money, not using it for conservation in this process. This person has as I read in articles, a fairly unlimited resources to dip from, how much will the state spend to pursue him? I would think that WDFW raffles and auctions programs could restrict individual participation and everyone moves on and conservation dollars are used for conservation. I get it upsets everyone here, myself included, but I blame more than the act or individual here...
...then your blame is misplaced. All due respects, Birddogdad, it's like blaming "an atmosphere of violence" to justify a gangsta's murdering someone. He knew the rules, probably better than anyone else, especially since he'd been bitten before. You blame the crime on the criminal.
I find it funny that "some guy" comes on here to
1. Straighten things out
2. Says he won't say anything because it is an ongoing investigation.
3. Says how many people will be served or sued for things they have said.
and my favorite
4. Throws out a person's name from WDFW who HE says is to blame..... :chuckle:
I find it funny that "some guy" comes on here to
1. Straighten things out
2. Says he won't say anything because it is an ongoing investigation.
3. Says how many people will be served or sued for things they have said.
and my favorite
4. Throws out a person's name from WDFW who HE says is to blame..... :chuckle:
Not sure what's funny about that? And I didn't just throw out a name. I gave the name of the officer that gave clear permission to shoot the bull knowing exactly where it was at. If you think that's funny or something that's your rigbt.
so why would a guy that sent the case the the prosecutors office send it there if there were no laws violated? Oh wait that's right you don't want to talk about the case!I find it funny that "some guy" comes on here to
1. Straighten things out
2. Says he won't say anything because it is an ongoing investigation.
3. Says how many people will be served or sued for things they have said.
and my favorite
4. Throws out a person's name from WDFW who HE says is to blame..... :chuckle:
Not sure what's funny about that? And I didn't just throw out a name. I gave the name of the officer that gave clear permission to shoot the bull knowing exactly where it was at. If you think that's funny or something that's your rigbt.
I find it funny that "some guy" comes on here to
1. Straighten things out
2. Says he won't say anything because it is an ongoing investigation.
3. Says how many people will be served or sued for things they have said.
and my favorite
4. Throws out a person's name from WDFW who HE says is to blame..... :chuckle:
Not sure what's funny about that? And I didn't just throw out a name. I gave the name of the officer that gave clear permission to shoot the bull knowing exactly where it was at. If you think that's funny or something that's your rigbt.
Seems unlikely someone with a tag link that would risk a chance of getting in trouble at least you'd hope not
I'm not going to comment on any details while this case is open or before the person on this forum gets served. I will tell you great steps were taken to do the right thing.
And the right thing was? :chuckle:
Welcome to the site. Pretty big first couple of posts.
And who is getting served if you don't mind me asking.
Thank you for the welcome. I signed up to this forum to hopefully clear things up some. There has been a lot of false information posted on this site. A call was made to the game department asking if it was ok to shoot the bull where it located. After Morgan Grant from the game department checked into it another phone conversation took place and the hunters were told they absolutely could harvest that bull with that tag at that location. If in fact the info given was wrong the game department is the one to be blamed.
As for the person on here that will be dealing with legal issues, I can't tell you who that is at this point. But if you read the thread on this topic that was removed it would be really easy for you to guess who.
I find it funny that "some guy" comes on here to
1. Straighten things out
2. Says he won't say anything because it is an ongoing investigation.
3. Says how many people will be served or sued for things they have said.
and my favorite
4. Throws out a person's name from WDFW who HE says is to blame..... :chuckle:
Not sure what's funny about that? And I didn't just throw out a name. I gave the name of the officer that gave clear permission to shoot the bull knowing exactly where it was at. If you think that's funny or something that's your rigbt.Seems unlikely someone with a tag link that would risk a chance of getting in trouble at least you'd hope not
I'm not going to comment on any details while this case is open or before the person on this forum gets served. I will tell you great steps were taken to do the right thing.
And the right thing was? :chuckle:
Welcome to the site. Pretty big first couple of posts.
And who is getting served if you don't mind me asking.
Thank you for the welcome. I signed up to this forum to hopefully clear things up some. There has been a lot of false information posted on this site. A call was made to the game department asking if it was ok to shoot the bull where it located. After Morgan Grant from the game department checked into it another phone conversation took place and the hunters were told they absolutely could harvest that bull with that tag at that location. If in fact the info given was wrong the game department is the one to be blamed.
As for the person on here that will be dealing with legal issues, I can't tell you who that is at this point. But if you read the thread on this topic that was removed it would be really easy for you to guess who.
Hopefully your info is accurate. Wouldn't want Mr. Grant filing a lawsuit against you.
:tup:
Not sure what's funny about that? And I didn't just throw out a name. I gave the name of the officer that gave clear permission to shoot the bull knowing exactly where it was at. If you think that's funny or something that's your right.
I'm not going to comment on any details while this case is openand
I haven't and won't say anything that will have any effect on either issue.
Quote from: link=topic=195504.msg2591551#msg2591551 date=1463327889There has been a lot of false information posted on this site. A call was made to the game department asking if it was ok to shoot the bull where it located. After Morgan Grant from the game department checked into it another phone conversation took place and the hunters were told they absolutely could harvest that bull with that tag at that location.Quote from: link=topic=195504.msg2591550#msg2591550 date=1463327674Quote from: link=topic=195504.msg2591499#msg2591499 date=1463321301
Why did you call the game department to ask if you knew exactly which unit the bull was located? What about the regulations caused you concern that you were hunting in a closed unit and needed an officers clarification or permission - the latter for which he does not have authority?I find it funny that "some guy" comes on here to
1. Straighten things out
2. Says he won't say anything because it is an ongoing investigation.
3. Says how many people will be served or sued for things they have said.
and my favorite
4. Throws out a person's name from WDFW who HE says is to blame..... :chuckle:
Not sure what's funny about that? And I didn't just throw out a name. I gave the name of the officer that gave clear permission to shoot the bull knowing exactly where it was at. If you think that's funny or something that's your rigbt.
I find it funny that "some guy" comes on here to
1. Straighten things out
2. Says he won't say anything because it is an ongoing investigation.
3. Says how many people will be served or sued for things they have said.
and my favorite
4. Throws out a person's name from WDFW who HE says is to blame..... :chuckle:
Not sure what's funny about that? And I didn't just throw out a name. I gave the name of the officer that gave clear permission to shoot the bull knowing exactly where it was at. If you think that's funny or something that's your rigbt.
Sounds like the same story.
A LEO officer whether preset or on the phone can not change then law, he or she can not change the law, rules, rcw's or reg's on the fly..
They can not issue someone the right to circumnavigate the rules, laws, game regs etc and the time....
My friend the WSP can not tell, me it's ok to drive home drunk no more than a WDFW Officer can tell someone it is ok to shoot an animal in a area closed to that for everyone....sorry but i call BS. It is not a judgment call or an interpretation, the hunter was in an area where it was not legal and no matter what some paid LEO told him it was not legal!!!!
This guy should be charged with a FELONY! No more hunting, no more guns!
Makes me sick. What a pathetic excuse for a man.
Can someone point me to the RCW or WDFW enacting legislation that grants WDFW enforcement officers the authority to suspend, temporarily or situationally, the issued regulations of the department?
Oh, and is there anything but a "he said" that mr Grant gave his permission verbally? Anything that documents his action? Recording? Text? Email?
Assuming this permission could be documented, it seems to me it would only be evidence that the Sgt and the hunter should both be prosecuted, rather than a basis that the hunter is without fault. If a police officer gives me "permission" to steal a car, I'm pretty sure I'm still going to jail if another officer arrests me for it. Primarily because I don't hear anyone claiming that the legality was in question, only whether or not they tried to get someone to give them extrajudicial Okee Dokee.
Feel free to correct me if that's wrong. But I have seen nothing that suggests that anyone misunderstood the unit the game was in or if it had any branch antlered season that would make it open to the tag holder. I'd have a slightly different opinion if someone was making a reasonable claim that the unit location was unclear or that a reg was ambiguous and they needed WDFW to clear it up, haven't seen that.
If the guy broke the law while hunting and using a firearm, and supposably multiple times. He absolutely should NOT have the right and privilege to do it again. :twocents:This guy should be charged with a FELONY! No more hunting, no more guns!
Makes me sick. What a pathetic excuse for a man.
Sorry but you lose people like me here. This is where I get off the train.
Voting restrictions, long prison time, and firearms removal ought be reserved for the most heinous in society: child molesters, murderers, Liberals, etc.
Hmm.. Well to me, if something is a right, it is NOT a privilege. The RKBA is a right. Ergo it must never be looked at as a privilege. I reject the notion that hunting is a privilege but absent a constitutional amendment defining it as a right then its a matter of state law where most call it a privilege. Restrict it as you will according to the legislative process--I don't want to see people go to prison for a single animal involving a first time offense. Big fines? Maybe. Prison time? Not agreeing to that. Just my :twocents:
Hmm.. Well to me, if something is a right, it is NOT a privilege. The RKBA is a right. Ergo it must never be looked at as a privilege. I reject the notion that hunting is a privilege but absent a constitutional amendment defining it as a right then its a matter of state law where most call it a privilege. Restrict it as you will according to the legislative process--I don't want to see people go to prison for a single animal involving a first time offense. Big fines? Maybe. Prison time? Not agreeing to that. Just my :twocents:
Hmm.. Well to me, if something is a right, it is NOT a privilege. The RKBA is a right. Ergo it must never be looked at as a privilege. I reject the notion that hunting is a privilege but absent a constitutional amendment defining it as a right then its a matter of state law where most call it a privilege. Restrict it as you will according to the legislative process--I don't want to see people go to prison for a single animal involving a first time offense. Big fines? Maybe. Prison time? Not agreeing to that. Just my :twocents:
Not his first rodeo :o
My opinions are general in nature and aren't necessarily a perspective on this particular case.
Organized, commercial poaching rings and repeat offenders should have the heat turned up. :twocents: IDK whether that's this case or not.
I believe that he could have thought the helicopter was legal. I do remember the ad in the regulations for hiring a helicopter. I'd even given it some thought (not serious thought, but a little thought) about using a helicopter to access some land for elk hunting. :twocents:
I believe that he could have thought the helicopter was legal. I do remember the ad in the regulations for hiring a helicopter. I'd even given it some thought (not serious thought, but a little thought) about using a helicopter to access some land for elk hunting. :twocents:
There are also ads for four wheelers in the Game Regs, does that introduce any confusion regarding the legality of operating them on Green Dot roads?
I believe that he could have thought the helicopter was legal. I do remember the ad in the regulations for hiring a helicopter. I'd even given it some thought (not serious thought, but a little thought) about using a helicopter to access some land for elk hunting. :twocents:
There are also ads for four wheelers in the Game Regs, does that introduce any confusion regarding the legality of operating them on Green Dot roads?
No. But I think the green dot road rules were/are very clear. I didn't get the impression that the flying rules were that clear (or easy to find). :dunno: I just think it is possible to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in the helicopter deal.
The bullwinkle case, I still can't understand why he would even want to shoot a tame elk (and in a closed unit). Why even ask for permission to shoot him when it was obviously illegal? :dunno:
I believe that he could have thought the helicopter was legal. I do remember the ad in the regulations for hiring a helicopter. I'd even given it some thought (not serious thought, but a little thought) about using a helicopter to access some land for elk hunting. :twocents:
There are also ads for four wheelers in the Game Regs, does that introduce any confusion regarding the legality of operating them on Green Dot roads?
No. But I think the green dot road rules were/are very clear. I didn't get the impression that the flying rules were that clear (or easy to find). :dunno: I just think it is possible to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in the helicopter deal.
The bullwinkle case, I still can't understand why he would even want to shoot a tame elk (and in a closed unit). Why even ask for permission to shoot him when it was obviously illegal? :dunno:
So, he plead guilty and was convicted of lying? And not poaching or wildlife related offense for the 2007 offense?
Are we all getting sued now?
Here's a "What If"........hypothetically there might have been several phone calls. Hypothetically many no's. Hypothetically many baiting questions to get a twisted answer that someone wanted to hear. I don't know but I had a damage permit for my son. The land owner gave me the permit they recieved from the game department. Stating what unit and what weapon could be used. IT WAS IN WRITING! If it were me with the raffle tag and that was the bull I wanted I would have drove to Yakima to mr grant and had in writing that it was ok to shoot the bull. But that's just me. :dunno:
What if a guy had an "any bull" permit for a neighboring GMU and he calls wdfw and asks "Hey, I have a "any bull" permit for GMU 328 but I see a real nice bull in GMU 334. Can I go ahead and shoot that bull instead of finding one in 328?
I would hope the answer would be "no".......or a laugh followed by "hell no!".
But what if that same guy calls up and says "I have an 'any bull' permit and I see a bull in a firearm restricted area, can I go ahead and shoot him with my muzzleloader?"
Well, then I could see the wdfw employee saying sure "a muzzleloader is allowed in a firearm restricted area". The employee might not ask or connect the dots that the firearm restricted area is in the wrong GMU.
Could it have been an honest mistake? :dunno: I don't know. Maybe. Could the phone call to WDFW have been purposely stated to be misleading into getting permission? I don't know........maybe.
The case is definitely interesting though.........and no jealousy at all here. :hello:
Here's a "What If"........
What if a guy had an "any bull" permit for a neighboring GMU and he calls wdfw and asks "Hey, I have a "any bull" permit for GMU 328 but I see a real nice bull in GMU 334. Can I go ahead and shoot that bull instead of finding one in 328?
I would hope the answer would be "no".......or a laugh followed by "hell no!".
But what if that same guy calls up and says "I have an 'any bull' permit and I see a bull in a firearm restricted area, can I go ahead and shoot him with my muzzleloader?"
Well, then I could see the wdfw employee saying sure "a muzzleloader is allowed in a firearm restricted area". The employee might not ask or connect the dots that the firearm restricted area is in the wrong GMU.
Could it have been an honest mistake? :dunno: I don't know. Maybe. Could the phone call to WDFW have been purposely stated to be misleading into getting permission? I don't know........maybe.
The case is definitely interesting though.........and no jealousy at all here. :hello:
I believe that he could have thought the helicopter was legal. I do remember the ad in the regulations for hiring a helicopter. I'd even given it some thought (not serious thought, but a little thought) about using a helicopter to access some land for elk hunting. :twocents:
There are also ads for four wheelers in the Game Regs, does that introduce any confusion regarding the legality of operating them on Green Dot roads?
No. But I think the green dot road rules were/are very clear. I didn't get the impression that the flying rules were that clear (or easy to find). :dunno: I just think it is possible to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in the helicopter deal.
The bullwinkle case, I still can't understand why he would even want to shoot a tame elk (and in a closed unit). Why even ask for permission to shoot him when it was obviously illegal? :dunno:
So, he plead guilty and was convicted of lying? And not poaching or wildlife related offense for the 2007 offense?
Yes.
Just where do you get off making logical statements like that? Allegedly... There is no room for that sort of thing around here. Allegedly...So, he plead guilty and was convicted of lying? And not poaching or wildlife related offense for the 2007 offense?
Yes.
Not that I have experience as a judge but I see this not affecting the current case as much. He plead out for 2007 for lying. Sure there were other incidents involved but that's not what he was convicted of. There's no legal pattern of behavior for wildlife convictions so it presents itself as this being the first offense and he'll probably drag this out and fill this year's tags then plead out and get a slap on the wrist.
Just saying, not agreeing
I think my cd player is scratched because same things keep playing over and over. wait, since it's being called a "pet" does that mean he shot a nuisance pet that trespassed on someone else's property? I mean, the argument is sound, all the news articles and even on here its been clearly argued that this was a "pet" for a decade?
I think Plat meant the pet trespassed onto someone else's property and got shot because of it.
I'm not liking the whole "this guy shot a famous elk in a field and that's what we're mad about" vibe in these articles. The fact remains you can shoot the friendliest, cutest, nicest most photogenic elk around, provided it is in an open unit.
Let's not confuse the attempt by the media to get clicks by pulling on the heartstrings of bunny huggers with the real issue here - that the accused is charged with killing a branch bull closed to all branched bull hunting.
:twocents:
I'm not going to comment on the legalities of it because I was not there nor the one that got supposed permission to hunt that area.You do a lot of hound hunting Brandon??
I do have a problem though with the part about how it's bad to shoot an animal in a field. Zero difference then shooting a cat out of a tree. Neither one takes any skill yet 99% of the people on this site would jump at the chance to shoot a lion in a tree. The first thread on this issue was started because guys were saying it wasn't much of a hunt. Not that it was illegal. Then that started after a page or two.
So for the guys that are saying it's not hunting get off your high horse.
oooo you beat me to it!
he likely has never cougar hunted....
I've been lucky enough to do many different hunts, including hunts in several other countries, cougar hunting is still my favorite hunt. Some of the best cougar hunts have ended by taking photos and leaving the cat in the tree! The most rewarding part is watching the young hounds learn and develop into experienced lion hounds. Almost anyone can become successful in many types of hunting, but to be a top notch hound hunter requires incredible dedication by the hunter and a very sharp learning curve. After all the time and work to get good at hound hunting, you can take your dogs to field, search for days and sometimes weeks to find a good track, you and your dogs can experience the thrill of the hunt, hopefully you catch the cat and get photos of the hunted, and then you leave the hunted animal unharmed in the wild after experiencing the hunt of lifetime. Hunting really can't get any better than that!
For those that choose to notch a cougar tag you then have some of the best meat in the woods!
I think it's somewhat legitimate to call this elk a pet and to have a problem with the taking of this elk because of how tame it was. The reason it was this way is because it never lived in a GMU that was open to branch antler elk hunting. This was the only reason this bull survived to the age that he did. Nobody else killed him because it had always been illegal to do so. Until Tod Reichert came along.one of the bulls that hung out with bullwinkle was tranquilized this winter and was relocate to Joe watt feed lot. When the bull came to it walked out of the trailer looked at all the elk ran all the way to east side before breaking through the fence. He found his way home within less than a week. Hmmm tame? :chuckle:
I wonder how popular the land owner that gave Tod R permission is with the locals that enjoyed watching Bullwinkle?
That's the problem nowadays. People turning wild animals into pets. Did it not say they were feeding it and petting it? That sounds like a pet to me. Heck, my argument would be as the homeowner I contacted the State to get its "pet" off my property because it's ruining and damaging my property and interfering with my livestock if not, I'll take care of it myself.
Or, it threatened and intimidated my wife and/or kids when we went outside so I put it down. If somebodies pet harasses or comes onto my grandmother's pasture and begins to harass her cattle it get a dirt nap and bath in the canal.
Is there a reason they were trying to remove elk? Was there more than one elk involved in relocation? Were there any plans to lethally remove them?
8)
He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
I think it's somewhat legitimate to call this elk a pet and to have a problem with the taking of this elk because of how tame it was. The reason it was this way is because it never lived in a GMU that was open to branch antler elk hunting. This was the only reason this bull survived to the age that he did. Nobody else killed him because it had always been illegal to do so. Until Tod Reichert came along.one of the bulls that hung out with bullwinkle was tranquilized this winter and was relocate to Joe watt feed lot. When the bull came to it walked out of the trailer looked at all the elk ran all the way to east side before breaking through the fence. He found his way home within less than a week. Hmmm tame? :chuckle:
He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?
He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?
Well if you paid any attention, I believe it was last year he bid up his own bI'd by another 5k when it was clear there was not another bid coming in.
Wdfw could've saved time, money and resources and just called me and I would've came out and dropped those bulls for free. :chuckle:
He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?
Well if you paid any attention, I believe it was last year he bid up his own bI'd by another 5k when it was clear there was not another bid coming in.
Wow, I stand corrected, his $5k is indeed more for elk than 95% of the rest of the hunters in this state have done combined. :chuckle: :mor:
kiticaashunter,[/quote]
What you said the question was only means that the game enforcement officer said that in a firearms restricted unit even a disabled hunter could not use a rifle and would have to use a muzzleloader, since we don't know which unit he was told it was in, that does nothing to prove that he knew what unit the elk was located in. Also I was always told that ignorance of the law was no excuse.
Partial quote from kitticaashunter's previous post.
"The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys mind was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled. He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in."
Depending on the date when this "hunt" occurred, there is a antlerless hunt in that unit mid November until mid December. You could the WDFW office and say: I'm elk hunting and I'm not sure if I can hunt with a mod rifle or not, can you help me out? Response: Where are you? I'll check and call you back. Ring: You can hunt there but it's a firearms restricted area, so shotgun, muzzle loader or bow. Response: Thanks!
Thing is the other elk that was shot in a "yard" was legal. This elk was not, ever! Oh yea, it was shot in a yard too!
Depending on the date when this "hunt" occurred, there is a antlerless hunt in that unit mid November until mid December. You could the WDFW office and say: I'm elk hunting and I'm not sure if I can hunt with a mod rifle or not, can you help me out? Response: Where are you? I'll check and call you back. Ring: You can hunt there but it's a firearms restricted area, so shotgun, muzzle loader or bow. Response: Thanks!
Thing is the other elk that was shot in a "yard" was legal. This elk was not, ever! Oh yea, it was shot in a yard too!
Mr. Grant knew the exact bull that was was going to be taken. There was no trickery or word's twisted in this case. At the time he gave gave the good to go he was up for promotion. Since then he has gotten it and tried hard to distance himself from this. He is an honest guy and will tell the truth on the stand. And that will be that he double checked to make sure it was all good.
I'm not going to comment on the legalities of it because I was not there nor the one that got supposed permission to hunt that area.You do a lot of hound hunting Brandon??
I do have a problem though with the part about how it's bad to shoot an animal in a field. Zero difference then shooting a cat out of a tree. Neither one takes any skill yet 99% of the people on this site would jump at the chance to shoot a lion in a tree. The first thread on this issue was started because guys were saying it wasn't much of a hunt. Not that it was illegal. Then that started after a page or two.
So for the guys that are saying it's not hunting get off your high horse.
oooo you beat me to it!
he likely has never cougar hunted....
I've been lucky enough to do many different hunts, including hunts in several other countries, cougar hunting is still my favorite hunt. Some of the best cougar hunts have ended by taking photos and leaving the cat in the tree! The most rewarding part is watching the young hounds learn and develop into experienced lion hounds. Almost anyone can become successful in many types of hunting, but to be a top notch hound hunter requires incredible dedication by the hunter and a very sharp learning curve. After all the time and work to get good at hound hunting, you can take your dogs to field, search for days and sometimes weeks to find a good track, you and your dogs can experience the thrill of the hunt, hopefully you catch the cat and get photos of the hunted, and then you leave the hunted animal unharmed in the wild after experiencing the hunt of lifetime. Hunting really can't get any better than that!
For those that choose to notch a cougar tag you then have some of the best meat in the woods!
I've actually shot 4 lions in Washington. All without hounds. So yes I've hunted cats before.
Let's say I was rich like some hunters are and a cat is on my bucket list. I hire the best outfitter I can find. Wait by the phone for a call once they get good snow in the area I'm hunting.
Fly in, ride out with an outfitter and cut tracks right away. Get lucky and the cat is treed after a few minutes cause it had a kill next to the road. Hike the 200 yards off the road and shoot it out of the tree. Get my trophy pictures of me with my cat.
Yes not all cat hunts are like that. But some are that easy. And some are way more physical. But at the end of the day most of the cats that get killed take absolutely zero skill from the guys doing the shooting. They pay money to a guy that trains dogs to tree animals. They follow the dogs and shoot an animal out of a tree. Absolutely zero skill on the shooters part. So you have a very good dog trainer, and a guy that pays money to shoot an animal out of a tree, and the actually hunters are the dogs.
How about a guided whitetail hunt with bait? You pay the money, ride out to the blind on the ATV. Wait for the feeder to kick on. Once it does here come the deer and bam you just killed a trophy whitetail. Again zero skill involved. Zero effort involved.
im glad you cleared this issue up for us.Depending on the date when this "hunt" occurred, there is a antlerless hunt in that unit mid November until mid December. You could the WDFW office and say: I'm elk hunting and I'm not sure if I can hunt with a mod rifle or not, can you help me out? Response: Where are you? I'll check and call you back. Ring: You can hunt there but it's a firearms restricted area, so shotgun, muzzle loader or bow. Response: Thanks!
Thing is the other elk that was shot in a "yard" was legal. This elk was not, ever! Oh yea, it was shot in a yard too!
Mr. Grant knew the exact bull that was was going to be taken. There was no trickery or word's twisted in this case. At the time he gave gave the good to go he was up for promotion. Since then he has gotten it and tried hard to distance himself from this. He is an honest guy and will tell the truth on the stand. And that will be that he double checked to make sure it was all good.
I'm not going to comment on the legalities of it because I was not there nor the one that got supposed permission to hunt that area.You do a lot of hound hunting Brandon??
I do have a problem though with the part about how it's bad to shoot an animal in a field. Zero difference then shooting a cat out of a tree. Neither one takes any skill yet 99% of the people on this site would jump at the chance to shoot a lion in a tree. The first thread on this issue was started because guys were saying it wasn't much of a hunt. Not that it was illegal. Then that started after a page or two.
So for the guys that are saying it's not hunting get off your high horse.
oooo you beat me to it!
he likely has never cougar hunted....
I've been lucky enough to do many different hunts, including hunts in several other countries, cougar hunting is still my favorite hunt. Some of the best cougar hunts have ended by taking photos and leaving the cat in the tree! The most rewarding part is watching the young hounds learn and develop into experienced lion hounds. Almost anyone can become successful in many types of hunting, but to be a top notch hound hunter requires incredible dedication by the hunter and a very sharp learning curve. After all the time and work to get good at hound hunting, you can take your dogs to field, search for days and sometimes weeks to find a good track, you and your dogs can experience the thrill of the hunt, hopefully you catch the cat and get photos of the hunted, and then you leave the hunted animal unharmed in the wild after experiencing the hunt of lifetime. Hunting really can't get any better than that!
For those that choose to notch a cougar tag you then have some of the best meat in the woods!
I've actually shot 4 lions in Washington. All without hounds. So yes I've hunted cats before.
Let's say I was rich like some hunters are and a cat is on my bucket list. I hire the best outfitter I can find. Wait by the phone for a call once they get good snow in the area I'm hunting.
Fly in, ride out with an outfitter and cut tracks right away. Get lucky and the cat is treed after a few minutes cause it had a kill next to the road. Hike the 200 yards off the road and shoot it out of the tree. Get my trophy pictures of me with my cat.
Yes not all cat hunts are like that. But some are that easy. And some are way more physical. But at the end of the day most of the cats that get killed take absolutely zero skill from the guys doing the shooting. They pay money to a guy that trains dogs to tree animals. They follow the dogs and shoot an animal out of a tree. Absolutely zero skill on the shooters part. So you have a very good dog trainer, and a guy that pays money to shoot an animal out of a tree, and the actually hunters are the dogs.
How about a guided whitetail hunt with bait? You pay the money, ride out to the blind on the ATV. Wait for the feeder to kick on. Once it does here come the deer and bam you just killed a trophy whitetail. Again zero skill involved. Zero effort involved.
I was more or less correct, you have never cougar hunted with hounds. Instead you have conjured up "how you think it's unethical" in your mind.
Hooray, you are a stud hunter, you killed 4 lions without hounds, that must make everyone who wants to hunt with hounds unethical! I bet you even donated to HSUS so they could ban bear baiting and hound hunting. :chuckle:
FYI, you are nobody special, I know lots of hunters who have killed cougar without dogs, hundreds are killed every year in WA without dogs, all you have to do is follow the tracks until you see the cat and shoot it, anyone can do that, it's the easy way out, you didn't go to all the effort training hounds and doing it right. You simply walked out in the woods and shot those cats, pathetic to say the least. maybe you were even just road hunting and blasted one using your truck hood for a rest. Maybe you shot one through your bedroom window out of your back yard. Worse yet, you may have baited one in or you may have really stooped low and shot one of those cats when it came in to finish eating the deer it worked so hard to kill so it could merely survive! How disgusting! :chuckle:
It's obvious to me you are the moral compass of hunters, you know how it should be done, we should all be like you or we should not hunt, we are all pathetic.
-
-
-
-
-
Well I'm very sorry for having to turn the table on you with those disgusting remarks. :sry:
I just wanted to show you how prejudice and narrow minded you are being. As hunters we should all support each other in all legal pursuits of hunting. It's specifically these narrow minded tactics that continue to cause the erosion of hunting. Please see the phrase in the bottom of this post!
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"
I'm not going to comment on the legalities of it because I was not there nor the one that got supposed permission to hunt that area.You do a lot of hound hunting Brandon??
I do have a problem though with the part about how it's bad to shoot an animal in a field. Zero difference then shooting a cat out of a tree. Neither one takes any skill yet 99% of the people on this site would jump at the chance to shoot a lion in a tree. The first thread on this issue was started because guys were saying it wasn't much of a hunt. Not that it was illegal. Then that started after a page or two.
So for the guys that are saying it's not hunting get off your high horse.
oooo you beat me to it!
he likely has never cougar hunted....
I've been lucky enough to do many different hunts, including hunts in several other countries, cougar hunting is still my favorite hunt. Some of the best cougar hunts have ended by taking photos and leaving the cat in the tree! The most rewarding part is watching the young hounds learn and develop into experienced lion hounds. Almost anyone can become successful in many types of hunting, but to be a top notch hound hunter requires incredible dedication by the hunter and a very sharp learning curve. After all the time and work to get good at hound hunting, you can take your dogs to field, search for days and sometimes weeks to find a good track, you and your dogs can experience the thrill of the hunt, hopefully you catch the cat and get photos of the hunted, and then you leave the hunted animal unharmed in the wild after experiencing the hunt of lifetime. Hunting really can't get any better than that!
For those that choose to notch a cougar tag you then have some of the best meat in the woods!
I've actually shot 4 lions in Washington. All without hounds. So yes I've hunted cats before.
Let's say I was rich like some hunters are and a cat is on my bucket list. I hire the best outfitter I can find. Wait by the phone for a call once they get good snow in the area I'm hunting.
Fly in, ride out with an outfitter and cut tracks right away. Get lucky and the cat is treed after a few minutes cause it had a kill next to the road. Hike the 200 yards off the road and shoot it out of the tree. Get my trophy pictures of me with my cat.
Yes not all cat hunts are like that. But some are that easy. And some are way more physical. But at the end of the day most of the cats that get killed take absolutely zero skill from the guys doing the shooting. They pay money to a guy that trains dogs to tree animals. They follow the dogs and shoot an animal out of a tree. Absolutely zero skill on the shooters part. So you have a very good dog trainer, and a guy that pays money to shoot an animal out of a tree, and the actually hunters are the dogs.
How about a guided whitetail hunt with bait? You pay the money, ride out to the blind on the ATV. Wait for the feeder to kick on. Once it does here come the deer and bam you just killed a trophy whitetail. Again zero skill involved. Zero effort involved.
I was more or less correct, you have never cougar hunted with hounds. Instead you have conjured up "how you think it's unethical" in your mind.
Hooray, you are a stud hunter, you killed 4 lions without hounds, that must make everyone who wants to hunt with hounds unethical! I bet you even donated to HSUS so they could ban bear baiting and hound hunting. :chuckle:
FYI, you are nobody special, I know lots of hunters who have killed cougar without dogs, hundreds are killed every year in WA without dogs, all you have to do is follow the tracks until you see the cat and shoot it, anyone can do that, it's the easy way out, you didn't go to all the effort training hounds and doing it right. You simply walked out in the woods and shot those cats, pathetic to say the least. maybe you were even just road hunting and blasted one using your truck hood for a rest. Maybe you shot one through your bedroom window out of your back yard. Worse yet, you may have baited one in or you may have really stooped low and shot one of those cats when it came in to finish eating the deer it worked so hard to kill so it could merely survive! How disgusting! :chuckle:
It's obvious to me you are the moral compass of hunters, you know how it should be done, we should all be like you or we should not hunt, we are all pathetic.
-
-
-
-
-
Well I'm very sorry for having to turn the table on you with those disgusting remarks. :sry:
I just wanted to show you how prejudice and narrow minded you are being. As hunters we should all support each other in all legal pursuits of hunting. It's specifically these narrow minded tactics that continue to cause the erosion of hunting. Please see the phrase in the bottom of this post!
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"
I believe you have my position wrong and I don't even care that you tried to insult me. I only tried to point out to the guys saying this elk that was killed wasn't hunted was actually hunted even though it didn't take a lot of effort or skill just like some other hunts.
There are a ton of what I consider "easy hunts" yet I still call it hunting because unlike what you got from my post I don't care how other people hunt or think my way is above others ways of hunting.
And as for hunting with dogs my opinion will not change. A good guide could easily get my wife who has never hunted before a nice cat with hounds. It doesn't take a skilled hunter to shoot an animal out of a tree. It takes a good dog trainer to train the dogs, and a couple of good dogs.
That doesn't mean I think it should not be allowed. It's the best way to manage cats so it should be legal.
Regards, Branden
Depending on the date when this "hunt" occurred, there is a antlerless hunt in that unit mid November until mid December. You could the WDFW office and say: I'm elk hunting and I'm not sure if I can hunt with a mod rifle or not, can you help me out? Response: Where are you? I'll check and call you back. Ring: You can hunt there but it's a firearms restricted area, so shotgun, muzzle loader or bow. Response: Thanks!
Thing is the other elk that was shot in a "yard" was legal. This elk was not, ever! Oh yea, it was shot in a yard too!
Mr. Grant knew the exact bull that was was going to be taken. There was no trickery or word's twisted in this case. At the time he gave gave the good to go he was up for promotion. Since then he has gotten it and tried hard to distance himself from this. He is an honest guy and will tell the truth on the stand. And that will be that he double checked to make sure it was all good.
Yea no biggie. I don't think I would get much enjoyment about telling the story of how I shot a 190" muley over my hood compared to the 150" buck I backpacked in 10 miles and killed with my bow. But both are hunting.
Some hunts take way more effort and skill then others. But the outrage for this bull started not because it was allegedly poached but because it was an easy hunt and not the way these guys would do it. Same as the article states with the "little girl saying it's not hunting".
Sorry to derail this from the judges and prosecutors we have here on Huntwa. You guys can continue labeling this illegal before this guy gets his chance at a trial.
I always thought it was innocent until proven guilty? The law must have changed and I've been to busy to notice. Thanks for helping educate me judges and prosecutors. :)
Regards, Branden
Yea no biggie. I don't think I would get much enjoyment about telling the story of how I shot a 190" muley over my hood compared to the 150" buck I backpacked in 10 miles and killed with my bow. But both are hunting.
Some hunts take way more effort and skill then others. But the outrage for this bull started not because it was allegedly poached but because it was an easy hunt and not the way these guys would do it. Same as the article states with the "little girl saying it's not hunting".
Sorry to derail this from the judges and prosecutors we have here on Huntwa. You guys can continue labeling this illegal before this guy gets his chance at a trial.
I always thought it was innocent until proven guilty? The law must have changed and I've been to busy to notice. Thanks for helping educate me judges and prosecutors. :)
Regards, Branden
Depending on the date when this "hunt" occurred, there is a antlerless hunt in that unit mid November until mid December. You could the WDFW office and say: I'm elk hunting and I'm not sure if I can hunt with a mod rifle or not, can you help me out? Response: Where are you? I'll check and call you back. Ring: You can hunt there but it's a firearms restricted area, so shotgun, muzzle loader or bow. Response: Thanks!
Thing is the other elk that was shot in a "yard" was legal. This elk was not, ever! Oh yea, it was shot in a yard too!
Mr. Grant knew the exact bull that was was going to be taken. There was no trickery or word's twisted in this case. At the time he gave gave the good to go he was up for promotion. Since then he has gotten it and tried hard to distance himself from this. He is an honest guy and will tell the truth on the stand. And that will be that he double checked to make sure it was all good.
Thank you for your many responses, it good to hear the other side of the story. I understand that many hunters would not want to hunt this animal because they view it as not being a challenging hunt and many view it as unethical to shoot an animal that thinks it's safe in an alfalfa field where it never gets shot at. In reality this animal had probably been legal game in this unit at a previous time in it's life. No doubt since maturing into an outstanding animal there have been dozens if not hundreds of hunters who tried to figure out how they could hunt this animal. In the meantime the animal became more complacent as it was not hunted and was even fed by local residents. It appears many local people adopted the bull as their mascot so to speak.
While many hunters condemn Reichert for shooting this animal it sounds like Reichert did the right thing and asked WDFW how to legally hunt the animal. I have pointed out that if a person calls WDFW with a question and is told you can hunt that seems to me all that is needed. I don't see how Reichert can be found guilty if he was told by WDFW after they researched the issue, that he can shoot the animal with his muzzleloader instead of his rifle and that is what he did.
I feel a person is innocent until proven guilty, I find it unfortunate that hunters are so quick to throw other hunters under the bus before they know the facts. I find it unfortunate that hunters turn on each other because they think one way of hunting is more ethical than another. I also find it unfortunate that a hunter needs a crystal ball to know if what they were told they could do by the enforcing agency will result in such a public outcry.
I'm sure someone will try to chastise me because I didn't publicly join in this witch hunt and I'll probably be accused of being an unethical hunter because I don't join in the outcry because this "mascot" was shot in a farmer's field. But I view it in a neutral "black and white" manner, did the hunter break the law or didn't he break the law. After finally hearing the other side of the story I'm not convinced Reichert broke the law. It sounds like he wanted to find a way to legally take the animal and was told by WDFW how to take the animal and then he proceeded. Sorry, but I question if there was any intent to break the law after hearing the other side of the story.
This whole thing more or less reminds me of "Cecil the Lion", the media will blow this story out of proportion to make hunters look bad because the animal was given a human name and considered by locals to be a pet! Unfortunately hunters are helping this scenario to happen! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the locals are at fault or that it was smart to shoot this animal. But if you take the emotion out of this story and simply ask yourself two questions, "Was the hunter told by the regulating agency he can shoot the animal?" and "Did the hunter intend to break the law?" While I understand ignorance of the law is no defense I think it's very questionable if Reichert can be found guilty. I would like to hear what Popeshawnpaul thinks after reading all of this?
I still have a question even though most has been cleared up by now. Didn't wdfw investigate the case and then hand it over to the county, and recommend prosecution? I would have thought that if Mr Grant gave permission, then the case would have been dropped? Is it simply because Grant had no authority legally to give the OK?
If permission was really given like they say, then I don't see why he would be found guilty....but then I also don't see why he would even be charged if permission were given?
WDFW absolutely did not recommended prosecution. The county did that on thier own knowing if it did go to court WDFW is not going to be good for thier case. They county got a lot of pressure from the likes of the tax money theif and the front porch elk hunter. This case will be dropped long before it sees a jury.
Yea no biggie. I don't think I would get much enjoyment about telling the story of how I shot a 190" muley over my hood compared to the 150" buck I backpacked in 10 miles and killed with my bow. But both are hunting.
Some hunts take way more effort and skill then others. But the outrage for this bull started not because it was allegedly poached but because it was an easy hunt and not the way these guys would do it. Same as the article states with the "little girl saying it's not hunting".
Sorry to derail this from the judges and prosecutors we have here on Huntwa. You guys can continue labeling this illegal before this guy gets his chance at a trial.
I always thought it was innocent until proven guilty? The law must have changed and I've been to busy to notice. Thanks for helping educate me judges and prosecutors. :)
Regards, Branden
People who live right at ground zero were absolutely fuming mad about it. They were not a little upset, they were steaming bloody madder than hell over it. The individual I know said that if he had wandered "off the reservation" e.g. out of GMU 334 and got killed that they would have missed him, but would have said: well why'd ya' go wandering off to where you would get shot. Ya big dummy.
Again, I am not talking about bunny huggers here. People knew he could wander up north and get plugged any day, but so long as he stayed home shooting him was inexcusable.
Depending on the date when this "hunt" occurred, there is a antlerless hunt in that unit mid November until mid December. You could the WDFW office and say: I'm elk hunting and I'm not sure if I can hunt with a mod rifle or not, can you help me out? Response: Where are you? I'll check and call you back. Ring: You can hunt there but it's a firearms restricted area, so shotgun, muzzle loader or bow. Response: Thanks!
Thing is the other elk that was shot in a "yard" was legal. This elk was not, ever! Oh yea, it was shot in a yard too!
Mr. Grant knew the exact bull that was was going to be taken. There was no trickery or word's twisted in this case. At the time he gave gave the good to go he was up for promotion. Since then he has gotten it and tried hard to distance himself from this. He is an honest guy and will tell the truth on the stand. And that will be that he double checked to make sure it was all good.
I'm curious are you testifying in the case. Your giving the impression that you know specific details related to the case, which is interesting because generally open forum web conversation about "facts" of a case are normally not recommended by either side. And I'm sure Grant would not appreciate the nature at which he is being thrown under the bus in regards to his alleged involvement.
Wow alot more keeps piling on since I looked at this site. Like I said I got on here to clear things up. I guess that didn't happen at all. The hunter seems to be judged worse and many of you discredited me. Do what you need to do.If this is true then Mr Grant should be reprimanded.
The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys mind was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled. He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in.
I have been hunting for more than 3 decades. I miss the times when things didn't seem to change so much. I appaud the people on here that seem to know every rule all the time as thinges change. We all try to keep up on everything. But are not afraid to call and ask for clarification when needed. In this case WDFG didn't just say it was ok, they went and double checked and again gave the ok.
This was a high profile tag, nobody involved wanted any issues in this case.
Worst part on this forum is the hunter has had some very bad things said about him. He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
Wow alot more keeps piling on since I looked at this site. Like I said I got on here to clear things up. I guess that didn't happen at all. The hunter seems to be judged worse and many of you discredited me. Do what you need to do.If this is true then Mr Grant should be reprimanded.
The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys mind was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled. He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in.
I have been hunting for more than 3 decades. I miss the times when things didn't seem to change so much. I appaud the people on here that seem to know every rule all the time as thinges change. We all try to keep up on everything. But are not afraid to call and ask for clarification when needed. In this case WDFG didn't just say it was ok, they went and double checked and again gave the ok.
This was a high profile tag, nobody involved wanted any issues in this case.
Worst part on this forum is the hunter has had some very bad things said about him. He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I'm glad the county did the right thing.Wow alot more keeps piling on since I looked at this site. Like I said I got on here to clear things up. I guess that didn't happen at all. The hunter seems to be judged worse and many of you discredited me. Do what you need to do.If this is true then Mr Grant should be reprimanded.
The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys mind was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled. He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in.
I have been hunting for more than 3 decades. I miss the times when things didn't seem to change so much. I appaud the people on here that seem to know every rule all the time as thinges change. We all try to keep up on everything. But are not afraid to call and ask for clarification when needed. In this case WDFG didn't just say it was ok, they went and double checked and again gave the ok.
This was a high profile tag, nobody involved wanted any issues in this case.
Worst part on this forum is the hunter has had some very bad things said about him. He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Agree. I believe the department hoped this would go away. A few people that didn't know the details kept the pressure on and the county caved to that pressure.
Depending on the date when this "hunt" occurred, there is a antlerless hunt in that unit mid November until mid December. You could the WDFW office and say: I'm elk hunting and I'm not sure if I can hunt with a mod rifle or not, can you help me out? Response: Where are you? I'll check and call you back. Ring: You can hunt there but it's a firearms restricted area, so shotgun, muzzle loader or bow. Response: Thanks!
Thing is the other elk that was shot in a "yard" was legal. This elk was not, ever! Oh yea, it was shot in a yard too!
Mr. Grant knew the exact bull that was was going to be taken. There was no trickery or word's twisted in this case. At the time he gave gave the good to go he was up for promotion. Since then he has gotten it and tried hard to distance himself from this. He is an honest guy and will tell the truth on the stand. And that will be that he double checked to make sure it was all good.
I'm curious are you testifying in the case. Your giving the impression that you know specific details related to the case, which is interesting because generally open forum web conversation about "facts" of a case are normally not recommended by either side. And I'm sure Grant would not appreciate the nature at which he is being thrown under the bus in regards to his alleged involvement.
At this point I have not been asked to testify. I will have no problem doing so and telling them what I know if they do ask. But I really doubt this case ends up in court, the charge was a result of relentless pressure from a few.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me. Who calls the WDFW and asks about hunting in a unit that is closed? Why would that even be considered an option? I don't believe it happened that way. Not in a million years would I ever think to call and ask permission to illegally kill an elk.
The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys mind was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled. He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in.
He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?
I tend to agree with Curly. The wrong issue was being addressed in the calls between the wdfw and the accused, and the answer to the wrong question was used to justify the illegal take of this bull. This demonstrates either a gross incompetence or deliberate attempt to skirt the law.
The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys mind was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled. He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in.
So, why was the only question in anyone's mind about whether a modern rifle could be used. Did anyone not question if it was OK to shoot s bull in 334? Was that an oversight on everyone's part (maybe including Mr. Grant) that 334 was closed for the raffle or auction tags? That's what it sounds like to me........a mistake on everyone's part not knowing that 334 was closed.
Very well said!He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?
While I appreciate the contributions this guy has made to conservation, One can certainly also argue that by being involved in two high-profile cases in which wildlife rules were violated, (either knowingly or unknowingly, it really doesn't matter the damage is the same) he has probably done more damage to the hunting community than 95% of the people on here. It only takes one "Cecil the lion" to do a lot of damage. Unfortunately, trophy hunting already carries a negative stigma with most of the non-hunting population so when a trophy hunter violates rules in an effort to take the biggest baddest animal around it provides them more ammunition to push for changes and regulations that cripple the tradition and means of subsidence that many of us cherish. I am quite certain based upon Mr. Reichert available resources , that he has lawyers on retainer and advisors that could know the game pamphlet backwards and forwards and advise him if he wanted that. I personally hunt three states. I make an effort each year to read the pamphlet for each state so I am aware of the rules and regulations I will be expected to follow. The bottom line is That with some hunters, the end justifies the means. If they have a certain animal targeted, they will do what it takes to get it. There is no doubt in my mind Mr. Reichert could have chose 100 quality bulls to shoot legally with that tag But choose to push the limits on one that involved some gray area. People on here can claim all they want that he did not know that he was in a unit not open to branch antler Bulls. That is your right to claim that and probably smart from a legal standpoint but recognize that the vast, vast majority of people who hear about this case will not believe you. In the end, your "ignorance and permission granted" argument may suffice to stave of prosecution but the damage is already done. The outcome of Mr Reicherts legal proceedings will do little to stem the black eye the hunting community has suffered as a result of this debacle.
From the very beginning this was never going to end well. Stevie Wonder could see that.
He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?
From the very beginning this was never going to end well. Stevie Wonder could see that.
Probably the most concise assessment of this entire mess, right there.
Regardless of what Mr. Reichert spends annually on rich man/auction tags, he has cost us all with this episode. The fact that he would WANT to kill this bull makes me question everything about his conservation ethic.
Not involved in this, but much like a vehicle accident, I cannot help but look...
What sticks out to me is the REMOVAL of the animal from the place it was harvested in 334 and relocated to 338 prior to being processed, that demonstrates an action that clearly indicates the knowledge that it was in a closed unit, and an attempt to misrepresent the location of the kill.
They just got caught. :twocents:
Not involved in this, but much like a vehicle accident, I cannot help but look...
What sticks out to me is the REMOVAL of the animal from the place it was harvested in 334 and relocated to 338 prior to being processed, that demonstrates an action that clearly indicates the knowledge that it was in a closed unit, and an attempt to misrepresent the location of the kill.
They just got caught. :twocents:
Removal from the field, I understand.One of the guys who was involved in the caping and gutting of the bull has a shop in the other unit. My guesstimate is they took it there to use his shop. I bet that's their reasoning.
I have done that also, however taking it into a different unit?
I also understand that the boundary might be as close as across the road, in the article it states it was relocated to a different field.
just smells fishy...
But then, I am jealous.
I would like to issue a challenge to MR. Reichert. Since your supporters on this site have clearly tried to emphasize the numerous positive contributions you have made to conservation and hunting over the handful of alleged indiscretions you have been linked too; I'm assuming a champion of conservation like yourself would not want an animal in his trophy room that had any stigma of indescretion associated with it. If you are found innocent of all charges and allowed to keep the bull I challenge you to pay to have the bull taxidermied and then to donate it to the city of Ellensburg to be put on display in a public building and thereby enjoyed in perpetuity by the local residents who have come to love that bull. I believe such an act would go a long way towards showing that you are in fact the man that your supporters characterize you to be and would somewhat mitigate the negative stigma associated with your hunt; especially in the area in which the bull was taken.
From the very beginning this was never going to end well. Stevie Wonder could see that.
Probably the most concise assessment of this entire mess, right there.
Regardless of what Mr. Reichert spends annually on rich man/auction tags, he has cost us all with this episode. The fact that he would WANT to kill this bull makes me question everything about his conservation ethic.
Yes he has, and more than anything I resent the stigma he has cast over the hunting community with this reckless and irresponsible act. We as hunters have not done a thing to bring this mess on, but those who oppose hunting will attempt to use this incident as a broad brush to tar us with.
But for Mr Reichert et all's actions there would be no controversy. And just to clear something up, I sent an email, made one phone call and paid one visit to the Prosecutor's Office. The call and visit were to ask a question or two and the email was to encourage prosecution if that is where the evidence leads. And that is a stone cold natural fact.
He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?
While I appreciate the contributions this guy has made to conservation, One can certainly also argue that by being involved in two high-profile cases in which wildlife rules were violated, (either knowingly or unknowingly, it really doesn't matter the damage is the same) he has probably done more damage to the hunting community than 95% of the people on here. It only takes one "Cecil the lion" to do a lot of damage. Unfortunately, trophy hunting already carries a negative stigma with most of the non-hunting population so when a trophy hunter violates rules in an effort to take the biggest baddest animal around it provides them more ammunition to push for changes and regulations that cripple the tradition and means of subsidence that many of us cherish. I am quite certain based upon Mr. Reichert available resources , that he has lawyers on retainer and advisors that could know the game pamphlet backwards and forwards and advise him if he wanted that. I personally hunt three states. I make an effort each year to read the pamphlet for each state so I am aware of the rules and regulations I will be expected to follow. The bottom line is That with some hunters, the end justifies the means. If they have a certain animal targeted, they will do what it takes to get it. There is no doubt in my mind Mr. Reichert could have chose 100 quality bulls to shoot legally with that tag But choose to push the limits on one that involved some gray area. People on here can claim all they want that he did not know that he was in a unit not open to branch antler Bulls. That is your right to claim that and probably smart from a legal standpoint but recognize that the vast, vast majority of people who hear about this case will not believe you. In the end, your "ignorance and permission granted" argument may suffice to stave of prosecution but the damage is already done. The outcome of Mr Reicherts legal proceedings will do little to stem the black eye the hunting community has suffered as a result of this debacle.
He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?
Well if you paid any attention, I believe it was last year he bid up his own bI'd by another 5k when it was clear there was not another bid coming in.
Wow, I stand corrected, his $5k is indeed more for elk than 95% of the rest of the hunters in this state have done combined. :chuckle: :mor:
Guess the moron sign was pointed to me. That's fine All I was trying to do here is tell the honest side of the story of a good man that has put hundreds of thousands of dollars into it in the last few years.
The situation last season was unfortunate. The honest truth is nobody involved in the situation tried to get around anything or cheat any rules. They checked, and Grant double checked to make sure it was all on the up and up.
M-Ray your such a little gossip queen please tell me who told me to stop f-ing with that bull ??? As I have said earlier I had no part in guiding TR on that hunt since I had been archery hunting the two weeks prior in the Okanogan. I was ask if I would help gut and cape the bull for TR. So yes I'm guilty for helping a friend. So Let the court figure this out mess out. Peace out till it goes to court.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
M-Ray your such a little gossip queen please tell me who told me to stop f-ing with that bull ??? As I have said earlier I had no part in guiding TR on that hunt since I had been archery hunting the two weeks prior in the Okanogan. I was ask if I would help gut and cape the bull for TR. So yes I'm guilty for helping a friend. So Let the court figure this out mess out. Peace out till it goes to court.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No offense, but with you throwing out the lawsuit word all over the last few pages of this thread, why would anyone mention any names?M-Ray your such a little gossip queen please tell me who told me to stop f-ing with that bull ??? As I have said earlier I had no part in guiding TR on that hunt since I had been archery hunting the two weeks prior in the Okanogan. I was ask if I would help gut and cape the bull for TR. So yes I'm guilty for helping a friend. So Let the court figure this out mess out. Peace out till it goes to court.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly. He will not tell you who said that because nobody did. This would not even be a story without a few seattle and tacoma guys fabricating the truth. Page after page they say things like this. But will not back it up with with names.
Please don't associate me with kitcaashunt I have no clue who this person is. The lawsuit was made by a separate party.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From the very beginning this was never going to end well. Stevie Wonder could see that.
Probably the most concise assessment of this entire mess, right there.
The fact that he would WANT to kill this bull makes me question everything about his conservation ethic.
Regardless of what Mr. Reichert spends annually on rich man/auction tags, he has cost us all with this episode.
Yes he has, and more than anything I resent the stigma he has cast over the hunting community with this reckless and irresponsible act. We as hunters have not done a thing to bring this mess on, but those who oppose hunting will attempt to use this incident as a broad brush to tar us with.
But for Mr Reichert et all's actions there would be no controversy. And just to clear something up, I sent an email, made one phone call and paid one visit to the Prosecutor's Office. The call and visit were to ask a question or two and the email was to encourage prosecution if that is where the evidence leads. And that is a stone cold natural fact.
That stigma was very well promoted by you trying to further your which hunt on forums all the way to the east coast.
What the heck...From the very beginning this was never going to end well. Stevie Wonder could see that.
Probably the most concise assessment of this entire mess, right there.
The fact that he would WANT to kill this bull makes me question everything about his conservation ethic.
Regardless of what Mr. Reichert spends annually on rich man/auction tags, he has cost us all with this episode.
Yes he has, and more than anything I resent the stigma he has cast over the hunting community with this reckless and irresponsible act. We as hunters have not done a thing to bring this mess on, but those who oppose hunting will attempt to use this incident as a broad brush to tar us with.
But for Mr Reichert et all's actions there would be no controversy. And just to clear something up, I sent an email, made one phone call and paid one visit to the Prosecutor's Office. The call and visit were to ask a question or two and the email was to encourage prosecution if that is where the evidence leads. And that is a stone cold natural fact.
That stigma was very well promoted by you trying to further your which hunt on forums all the way to the east coast.
You referring to this thread that was 41 pages before I joined it?
3125263 - Mon Sep 23 2013 05:52 PM Re: elk gov tag [Re: jakesroost]
you are correct that Tod has had past problems/issues. What I can assuredly tell you 100% is that while tod was with ECO he was a fine upstanding man and we didn't need dig up his or anyone else's "skeletons." He explained to Jack early on during their phone conversations the incident you are referring to. Jack was confident that Tod had seen the error of his ways and paid his "debt to society" so to speak and he started on a clean slate when he came to ECO.
The bull was killed on State forest land not national forest land so there is no concern in that aspect. ECO runs a tight ship and there is no room for rule breakers or rule stretchers among our ranks! THAT IS 100% TRUTH
What the heck...From the very beginning this was never going to end well. Stevie Wonder could see that.
Probably the most concise assessment of this entire mess, right there.
The fact that he would WANT to kill this bull makes me question everything about his conservation ethic.
Regardless of what Mr. Reichert spends annually on rich man/auction tags, he has cost us all with this episode.
Yes he has, and more than anything I resent the stigma he has cast over the hunting community with this reckless and irresponsible act. We as hunters have not done a thing to bring this mess on, but those who oppose hunting will attempt to use this incident as a broad brush to tar us with.
But for Mr Reichert et all's actions there would be no controversy. And just to clear something up, I sent an email, made one phone call and paid one visit to the Prosecutor's Office. The call and visit were to ask a question or two and the email was to encourage prosecution if that is where the evidence leads. And that is a stone cold natural fact.
That stigma was very well promoted by you trying to further your which hunt on forums all the way to the east coast.
You referring to this thread that was 41 pages before I joined it?
3125263 - Mon Sep 23 2013 05:52 PM Re: elk gov tag [Re: jakesroost]
you are correct that Tod has had past problems/issues. What I can assuredly tell you 100% is that while tod was with ECO he was a fine upstanding man and we didn't need dig up his or anyone else's "skeletons." He explained to Jack early on during their phone conversations the incident you are referring to. Jack was confident that Tod had seen the error of his ways and paid his "debt to society" so to speak and he started on a clean slate when he came to ECO.
The bull was killed on State forest land not national forest land so there is no concern in that aspect. ECO runs a tight ship and there is no room for rule breakers or rule stretchers among our ranks! THAT IS 100% TRUTH
What does a thread comment from 3 years ago have anything to do with anything?
He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.
What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?
While I appreciate the contributions this guy has made to conservation, One can certainly also argue that by being involved in two high-profile cases in which wildlife rules were violated, (either knowingly or unknowingly, it really doesn't matter the damage is the same) he has probably done more damage to the hunting community than 95% of the people on here. It only takes one "Cecil the lion" to do a lot of damage. Unfortunately, trophy hunting already carries a negative stigma with most of the non-hunting population so when a trophy hunter violates rules in an effort to take the biggest baddest animal around it provides them more ammunition to push for changes and regulations that cripple the tradition and means of subsidence that many of us cherish. I am quite certain based upon Mr. Reichert available resources , that he has lawyers on retainer and advisors that could know the game pamphlet backwards and forwards and advise him if he wanted that. I personally hunt three states. I make an effort each year to read the pamphlet for each state so I am aware of the rules and regulations I will be expected to follow. The bottom line is That with some hunters, the end justifies the means. If they have a certain animal targeted, they will do what it takes to get it. There is no doubt in my mind Mr. Reichert could have chose 100 quality bulls to shoot legally with that tag But choose to push the limits on one that involved some gray area. People on here can claim all they want that he did not know that he was in a unit not open to branch antler Bulls. That is your right to claim that and probably smart from a legal standpoint but recognize that the vast, vast majority of people who hear about this case will not believe you. In the end, your "ignorance and permission granted" argument may suffice to stave of prosecution but the damage is already done. The outcome of Mr Reicherts legal proceedings will do little to stem the black eye the hunting community has suffered as a result of this debacle.
What the heck...From the very beginning this was never going to end well. Stevie Wonder could see that.
Probably the most concise assessment of this entire mess, right there.
The fact that he would WANT to kill this bull makes me question everything about his conservation ethic.
Regardless of what Mr. Reichert spends annually on rich man/auction tags, he has cost us all with this episode.
Yes he has, and more than anything I resent the stigma he has cast over the hunting community with this reckless and irresponsible act. We as hunters have not done a thing to bring this mess on, but those who oppose hunting will attempt to use this incident as a broad brush to tar us with.
But for Mr Reichert et all's actions there would be no controversy. And just to clear something up, I sent an email, made one phone call and paid one visit to the Prosecutor's Office. The call and visit were to ask a question or two and the email was to encourage prosecution if that is where the evidence leads. And that is a stone cold natural fact.
That stigma was very well promoted by you trying to further your which hunt on forums all the way to the east coast.
You referring to this thread that was 41 pages before I joined it?
3125263 - Mon Sep 23 2013 05:52 PM Re: elk gov tag [Re: jakesroost]
you are correct that Tod has had past problems/issues. What I can assuredly tell you 100% is that while tod was with ECO he was a fine upstanding man and we didn't need dig up his or anyone else's "skeletons." He explained to Jack early on during their phone conversations the incident you are referring to. Jack was confident that Tod had seen the error of his ways and paid his "debt to society" so to speak and he started on a clean slate when he came to ECO.
The bull was killed on State forest land not national forest land so there is no concern in that aspect. ECO runs a tight ship and there is no room for rule breakers or rule stretchers among our ranks! THAT IS 100% TRUTH
What does a thread comment from 3 years ago have anything to do with anything?
Is this post even from this forum?
M-Ray your such a little gossip queen please tell me who told me to stop f-ing with that bull ??? As I have said earlier I had no part in guiding TR on that hunt since I had been archery hunting the two weeks prior in the Okanogan. I was ask if I would help gut and cape the bull for TR. So yes I'm guilty for helping a friend. So Let the court figure this out mess out. Peace out till it goes to court.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly. He will not tell you who said that because nobody did. This would not even be a story without a few seattle and tacoma guys fabricating the truth. Page after page they say things like this. But will not back it up with with names.
Wow haven't spoke to Harry in over a year. And like I said archery hunting up North so you better check and get your story straight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What the heck...From the very beginning this was never going to end well. Stevie Wonder could see that.
Probably the most concise assessment of this entire mess, right there.
The fact that he would WANT to kill this bull makes me question everything about his conservation ethic.
Regardless of what Mr. Reichert spends annually on rich man/auction tags, he has cost us all with this episode.
Yes he has, and more than anything I resent the stigma he has cast over the hunting community with this reckless and irresponsible act. We as hunters have not done a thing to bring this mess on, but those who oppose hunting will attempt to use this incident as a broad brush to tar us with.
But for Mr Reichert et all's actions there would be no controversy. And just to clear something up, I sent an email, made one phone call and paid one visit to the Prosecutor's Office. The call and visit were to ask a question or two and the email was to encourage prosecution if that is where the evidence leads. And that is a stone cold natural fact.
That stigma was very well promoted by you trying to further your which hunt on forums all the way to the east coast.
You referring to this thread that was 41 pages before I joined it?
3125263 - Mon Sep 23 2013 05:52 PM Re: elk gov tag [Re: jakesroost]
you are correct that Tod has had past problems/issues. What I can assuredly tell you 100% is that while tod was with ECO he was a fine upstanding man and we didn't need dig up his or anyone else's "skeletons." He explained to Jack early on during their phone conversations the incident you are referring to. Jack was confident that Tod had seen the error of his ways and paid his "debt to society" so to speak and he started on a clean slate when he came to ECO.
The bull was killed on State forest land not national forest land so there is no concern in that aspect. ECO runs a tight ship and there is no room for rule breakers or rule stretchers among our ranks! THAT IS 100% TRUTH
What does a thread comment from 3 years ago have anything to do with anything?
Is this post even from this forum?
No it is from a forum back east. The thread is 42 pages long and in that thread Mr Reichert does not fare so well. It is hard to locate it using a search engine. I was introduced to it via someone who sent me an email.
Allegedly...If there really was confusion of the regs, or special permission was trying to be obtained, why wasn't the question on the phone,"Hey, I have the raffle tag, is there any way I can get permission to shoot a branch antlered bull in 334?"My thoughts exactly Brent! I would be interested to know if this question was asked on the phone?
He knows my number tell him to call me so at least he can say he talked with me this year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He said "so he could say he talked to me "this" year, as in 2016.He knows my number tell him to call me so at least he can say he talked with me this year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No one said he told you THIS year :dunno:... I think I now know how the wdfw feels about the twist on words :chuckle:
Once again he can call me and stop having his little peacock spouting off for him. I haven't spoke with Harry in over a year. As for the game dept that between Tod and his guide I'm not part of the investigation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Boy I got dozens of elk, deer, and sheep pics from some nez pierce Indians in Idaho that come over every year to our beloved blues units, and hunt like its wide open, during the rut, or January when they come outta the hills, and kill em with a rifle. Velvet bucks, he really likes it when dummy's post sheep pics on the www from the asotin herd, he just rolls over and kills em, sometimes they roll right into the road... And he laughs and laughs while doing it. this guy would make guys posting here, and Tod look lie a saint..... But it doesn't even rate blurb on the radar. The simple fact is $$$$, if there wasn't so much of it involved folks woulda forgot about this long ago... Google the kill em all gang outta Longview, did they even get mentioned on here??? Or how bout old boy that killed the huge park bull on the skok tag that the kariloen bear dogs found the bones to?? Are they less important?? It sure seems so!!
PS the above mentioned native is killing waaaay over his limit, matter of fact I've been offered to go with him for a price, but never mind him, let's concentrate on the rich guy that buys all your chances...
Boy I got dozens of elk, deer, and sheep pics from some nez pierce Indians in Idaho that come over every year to our beloved blues units, and hunt like its wide open, during the rut, or January when they come outta the hills, and kill em with a rifle. Velvet bucks, he really likes it when dummy's post sheep pics on the www from the asotin herd, he just rolls over and kills em, sometimes they roll right into the road... And he laughs and laughs while doing it. this guy would make guys posting here, and Tod look lie a saint..... But it doesn't even rate blurb on the radar. The simple fact is $$$$, if there wasn't so much of it involved folks woulda forgot about this long ago... Google the kill em all gang outta Longview, did they even get mentioned on here??? Or how bout old boy that killed the huge park bull on the skok tag that the kariloen bear dogs found the bones to?? Are they less important?? It sure seems so!!
PS the above mentioned native is killing waaaay over his limit, matter of fact I've been offered to go with him for a price, but never mind him, let's concentrate on the rich guy that buys all your chances...
👆second that!Boy I got dozens of elk, deer, and sheep pics from some nez pierce Indians in Idaho that come over every year to our beloved blues units, and hunt like its wide open, during the rut, or January when they come outta the hills, and kill em with a rifle. Velvet bucks, he really likes it when dummy's post sheep pics on the www from the asotin herd, he just rolls over and kills em, sometimes they roll right into the road... And he laughs and laughs while doing it. this guy would make guys posting here, and Tod look lie a saint..... But it doesn't even rate blurb on the radar. The simple fact is $$$$, if there wasn't so much of it involved folks woulda forgot about this long ago... Google the kill em all gang outta Longview, did they even get mentioned on here??? Or how bout old boy that killed the huge park bull on the skok tag that the kariloen bear dogs found the bones to?? Are they less important?? It sure seems so!!
PS the above mentioned native is killing waaaay over his limit, matter of fact I've been offered to go with him for a price, but never mind him, let's concentrate on the rich guy that buys all your chances...
By all means sit idly by and allow this continued abuse/violation to continue. Don't think of doing anything about it cause he has no money. U are a pos for even stating you know this goes on and that you have evidence he goes over his limit but are doing nothing about it!!! Expose this native for his abuse and start the process of getting EVERYONE on the same page :twocents:
Boy I got dozens of elk, deer, and sheep pics from some nez pierce Indians in Idaho that come over every year to our beloved blues units, and hunt like its wide open, during the rut, or January when they come outta the hills, and kill em with a rifle. Velvet bucks, he really likes it when dummy's post sheep pics on the www from the asotin herd, he just rolls over and kills em, sometimes they roll right into the road... And he laughs and laughs while doing it. this guy would make guys posting here, and Tod look lie a saint..... But it doesn't even rate blurb on the radar. The simple fact is $$$$, if there wasn't so much of it involved folks woulda forgot about this long ago... Google the kill em all gang outta Longview, did they even get mentioned on here??? Or how bout old boy that killed the huge park bull on the skok tag that the kariloen bear dogs found the bones to?? Are they less important?? It sure seems so!!
PS the above mentioned native is killing waaaay over his limit, matter of fact I've been offered to go with him for a price, but never mind him, let's concentrate on the rich guy that buys all your chances...
By all means sit idly by and allow this continued abuse/violation to continue. Don't think of doing anything about it cause he has no money. U are a pos for even stating you know this goes on and that you have evidence he goes over his limit but are doing nothing about it!!! Expose this native for his abuse and start the process of getting EVERYONE on the same page :twocents:
👆second that!Boy I got dozens of elk, deer, and sheep pics from some nez pierce Indians in Idaho that come over every year to our beloved blues units, and hunt like its wide open, during the rut, or January when they come outta the hills, and kill em with a rifle. Velvet bucks, he really likes it when dummy's post sheep pics on the www from the asotin herd, he just rolls over and kills em, sometimes they roll right into the road... And he laughs and laughs while doing it. this guy would make guys posting here, and Tod look lie a saint..... But it doesn't even rate blurb on the radar. The simple fact is $$$$, if there wasn't so much of it involved folks woulda forgot about this long ago... Google the kill em all gang outta Longview, did they even get mentioned on here??? Or how bout old boy that killed the huge park bull on the skok tag that the kariloen bear dogs found the bones to?? Are they less important?? It sure seems so!!
PS the above mentioned native is killing waaaay over his limit, matter of fact I've been offered to go with him for a price, but never mind him, let's concentrate on the rich guy that buys all your chances...
By all means sit idly by and allow this continued abuse/violation to continue. Don't think of doing anything about it cause he has no money. U are a pos for even stating you know this goes on and that you have evidence he goes over his limit but are doing nothing about it!!! Expose this native for his abuse and start the process of getting EVERYONE on the same page :twocents:
Holy cow, lots of squirrels to chase there... so, you're complaining that this thread is still on it's original topic of one specific act committed by one specific person? Sounds like you're carrying an awful burden with the knowledge of the Nez Perce native abuses of SE WA wildlife - would be a great thread for you to start so it could be discussed there.
And, yes, the Kill em all boys and the park bull got their due attention on here back when they were going concerns. I don't see how those long-resolved issues have any relevance whatsoever to this current issue regarding a branched bull shot in a GMU closed to all branched bull hunting.
Kiticasshunter, you clearly seem to know the tag holder so I have a question for you. When it comes to this individuals hunting exploits is the size of the bull the end all? Did he ever consider that shooting a bull that was darn near as tame as domestic livestock, well known, and oft photographed might generate anemosity towards all hunters? I'm very surprised he choose to burn that tag in this manner considering the opportunities that tag offered him. Personally, I find little satisfaction in canned hunts but I recognize that not everyone is like me so I won't begrudge another hunter from enjoying the sport in any manner as long as it is legal and ethical. As a sportsman, however, I always feel an obligation to do my best to represent hunters in a positive light. We, hunters, are often our own worst enemy. When we waste game, make poor ethical decisions involving game, display kills in an undignified manner, hunt in an unsportsmanlike manner, etc we jeopardize the future of hunting. I figure that roughly 10% of voters hunt. Another 10% are against hunting so the future of hunting rests with the 80% of voters who don't have a dog in the fight. I try to always consider how my actions may influence that 80% and do my best to make sure it is for the better. Anyway, I'm just curious if any of this crossed his mind before he took that shot. It is my prayer that all of us will do a better job of this in the future so that our grandkids will get to enjoy the same types of hunting experiences that we did.
The aforementioned group did waaaaay more to hunting, game populations than Tod ever dreamed of. Folks didn't become so emotional about it simply cause the $$$ wasn't there and 400" bulls weren't gettin smacked. That's facts, not apples or oranges....
The aforementioned group did waaaaay more to hunting, game populations than Tod ever dreamed of. Folks didn't become so emotional about it simply cause the $$$ wasn't there and 400" bulls weren't gettin smacked. That's facts, not apples or oranges....
Not arguing who did more damage. If you think other hunters weren't PO'd then your wrong. I was extremely PO'd!!! I hunted alot of those areas and know it affected game populations. I know plenty of hunters who were furious, none were members here. Folks outside the hunting community didn't become as emotional cuz they couldn't see it. They didn't personally lose their pet deer. Or see it get shot. Or if they did it was unbeknownst to them. When they cant put a "face" to it, it doesn't create as big of a reaction. I remember a legal hunt a few years ago up skagit way that attracted ALOT of media attention and it was not a "big bull" or "big money" hunt. The deparment shut it down if I remember correctly.
Kiticasshunter, you clearly seem to know the tag holder so I have a question for you. When it comes to this individuals hunting exploits is the size of the bull the end all? Did he ever consider that shooting a bull that was darn near as tame as domestic livestock, well known, and oft photographed might generate anemosity towards all hunters? I'm very surprised he choose to burn that tag in this manner considering the opportunities that tag offered him. Personally, I find little satisfaction in canned hunts but I recognize that not everyone is like me so I won't begrudge another hunter from enjoying the sport in any manner as long as it is legal and ethical. As a sportsman, however, I always feel an obligation to do my best to represent hunters in a positive light. We, hunters, are often our own worst enemy. When we waste game, make poor ethical decisions involving game, display kills in an undignified manner, hunt in an unsportsmanlike manner, etc we jeopardize the future of hunting. I figure that roughly 10% of voters hunt. Another 10% are against hunting so the future of hunting rests with the 80% of voters who don't have a dog in the fight. I try to always consider how my actions may influence that 80% and do my best to make sure it is for the better. Anyway, I'm just curious if any of this crossed his mind before he took that shot. It is my prayer that all of us will do a better job of this in the future so that our grandkids will get to enjoy the same types of hunting experiences that we did.
I agree with everything you said. But I'm not going to tell a man in his 70's with health issues what a real "hunt" is. As long as it's legal everyone can make thier own decisions on what they do.when a ranking official from the game department says it's ok, most rational people would assume it is. This bull was shot in a more wild situation than the bull the teanawayslayer guy on this forum was involved in killing last season. That situation would make most hunters furious. But it was legal, so I can't say baiting in a front yard is wrong....,
Can someone point me to the RCW or WDFW enacting legislation that grants WDFW enforcement officers the authority to suspend, temporarily or situationally, the issued regulations of the department?If the game warden gave permission via any of the above in the authority of his position, it's all subject to public disclosure. Any Joe blow can ask for it. Won't be long and the media will be. This is going to upset the bunny huggers after being in multiple news sources today.
Oh, and is there anything but a "he said" that mr Grant gave his permission verbally? Anything that documents his action? Recording? Text? Email?
Assuming this permission could be documented, it seems to me it would only be evidence that the Sgt and the hunter should both be prosecuted, rather than a basis that the hunter is without fault. If a police officer gives me "permission" to steal a car, I'm pretty sure I'm still going to jail if another officer arrests me for it. Primarily because I don't hear anyone claiming that the legality was in question, only whether or not they tried to get someone to give them extrajudicial Okee Dokee.
Feel free to correct me if that's wrong. But I have seen nothing that suggests that anyone misunderstood the unit the game was in or if it had any branch antlered season that would make it open to the tag holder. I'd have a slightly different opinion if someone was making a reasonable claim that the unit location was unclear or that a reg was ambiguous and they needed WDFW to clear it up, haven't seen that.
Kiticasshunter, you clearly seem to know the tag holder so I have a question for you. When it comes to this individuals hunting exploits is the size of the bull the end all? Did he ever consider that shooting a bull that was darn near as tame as domestic livestock, well known, and oft photographed might generate anemosity towards all hunters? I'm very surprised he choose to burn that tag in this manner considering the opportunities that tag offered him. Personally, I find little satisfaction in canned hunts but I recognize that not everyone is like me so I won't begrudge another hunter from enjoying the sport in any manner as long as it is legal and ethical. As a sportsman, however, I always feel an obligation to do my best to represent hunters in a positive light. We, hunters, are often our own worst enemy. When we waste game, make poor ethical decisions involving game, display kills in an undignified manner, hunt in an unsportsmanlike manner, etc we jeopardize the future of hunting. I figure that roughly 10% of voters hunt. Another 10% are against hunting so the future of hunting rests with the 80% of voters who don't have a dog in the fight. I try to always consider how my actions may influence that 80% and do my best to make sure it is for the better. Anyway, I'm just curious if any of this crossed his mind before he took that shot. It is my prayer that all of us will do a better job of this in the future so that our grandkids will get to enjoy the same types of hunting experiences that we did.
I agree with everything you said. But I'm not going to tell a man in his 70's with health issues what a real "hunt" is. As long as it's legal everyone can make thier own decisions on what they do.when a ranking official from the game department says it's ok, most rational people would assume it is. This bull was shot in a more wild situation than the bull the teanawayslayer guy on this forum was involved in killing last season. That situation would make most hunters furious. But it was legal, so I can't say baiting in a front yard is wrong....,
Why do you, cboom, and -
Keep throwing out the hunt Tanawayslayer was on? There's no comparison. You are making false statements.
Kiticasshunter, you clearly seem to know the tag holder so I have a question for you. When it comes to this individuals hunting exploits is the size of the bull the end all? Did he ever consider that shooting a bull that was darn near as tame as domestic livestock, well known, and oft photographed might generate anemosity towards all hunters? I'm very surprised he choose to burn that tag in this manner considering the opportunities that tag offered him. Personally, I find little satisfaction in canned hunts but I recognize that not everyone is like me so I won't begrudge another hunter from enjoying the sport in any manner as long as it is legal and ethical. As a sportsman, however, I always feel an obligation to do my best to represent hunters in a positive light. We, hunters, are often our own worst enemy. When we waste game, make poor ethical decisions involving game, display kills in an undignified manner, hunt in an unsportsmanlike manner, etc we jeopardize the future of hunting. I figure that roughly 10% of voters hunt. Another 10% are against hunting so the future of hunting rests with the 80% of voters who don't have a dog in the fight. I try to always consider how my actions may influence that 80% and do my best to make sure it is for the better. Anyway, I'm just curious if any of this crossed his mind before he took that shot. It is my prayer that all of us will do a better job of this in the future so that our grandkids will get to enjoy the same types of hunting experiences that we did.
I agree with everything you said. But I'm not going to tell a man in his 70's with health issues what a real "hunt" is. As long as it's legal everyone can make thier own decisions on what they do.when a ranking official from the game department says it's ok, most rational people would assume it is. This bull was shot in a more wild situation than the bull the teanawayslayer guy on this forum was involved in killing last season. That situation would make most hunters furious. But it was legal, so I can't say baiting in a front yard is wrong....,
Why do you, cboom, and -
Keep throwing out the hunt Tanawayslayer was on? There's no comparison. You are making false statements.
IF Sgt. Grant did get or give the ok, I'm sure this will lead to others "making a call" and doing what they want.
PopeSHawn
If TR gets off because of this "call" will case law precedent be set or will it just be a first instance and it needs more actual cases to be hard and fast??
if so you can bet it will be happening more often!!
IF Sgt. Grant did get or give the ok, I'm sure this will lead to others "making a call" and doing what they want.
PopeSHawn
If TR gets off because of this "call" will case law precedent be set or will it just be a first instance and it needs more actual cases to be hard and fast??
if so you can bet it will be happening more often!!
It actually happens all the time. I have two recent cases where it happened. Before this case I informed the GMAC and new Chief Crown this was happening, especially with the licensing division. I advised he had a problem with employees giving bad legal advise. I didn't feel they took my concerns seriously.
Think of difficult to understand WAC's and RCW's that conflict with one another. Everyone on this forum seems to think the regulations are easy to understand and who wouldn't know the law? Well, the regulations are long and complicated and I know if a few instances where the regs, WAC, and RCW conflict. What would be the prudent thing to do before you buy a license if you are unsure of the law? Email or call WDFW. Everyone that thinks this is a good ploy to go poach animals after getting faulty advise speak of relative nonsense. I can't see someone that wants to do something illegal doing this. The call is difficult to ascertain what was said. If I were to give advise on the situation, I advise clients to email WDFW or get it in writing. While it might still not be a defense, it's great stuff to have. If they give you bad advice, is the burden on you? Depends on the charge and whether intent is an issue. It will not create case law because it has happened many times and there is no legal issue to appeal that a court could look to overturn.
This is akin to a DUI case I had about a decade ago. The trooper came upon my client on the side of the road. He advised him to drive up to the nearest gas station about a mile away and followed him there. He then arrested him for DUI. Why would he advise my client to violate the law and drive drunk and then cite for DUI? I lost that case but still think it's BS.
IF Sgt. Grant did get or give the ok, I'm sure this will lead to others "making a call" and doing what they want.
PopeSHawn
If TR gets off because of this "call" will case law precedent be set or will it just be a first instance and it needs more actual cases to be hard and fast??
if so you can bet it will be happening more often!!
It actually happens all the time. I have two recent cases where it happened. Before this case I informed the GMAC and new Chief Crown this was happening, especially with the licensing division. I advised he had a problem with employees giving bad legal advise. I didn't feel they took my concerns seriously.
Think of difficult to understand WAC's and RCW's that conflict with one another. Everyone on this forum seems to think the regulations are easy to understand and who wouldn't know the law? Well, the regulations are long and complicated and I know if a few instances where the regs, WAC, and RCW conflict. What would be the prudent thing to do before you buy a license if you are unsure of the law? Email or call WDFW. Everyone that thinks this is a good ploy to go poach animals after getting faulty advise speak of relative nonsense. I can't see someone that wants to do something illegal doing this. The call is difficult to ascertain what was said. If I were to give advise on the situation, I advise clients to email WDFW or get it in writing. While it might still not be a defense, it's great stuff to have. If they give you bad advice, is the burden on you? Depends on the charge and whether intent is an issue. It will not create case law because it has happened many times and there is no legal issue to appeal that a court could look to overturn.
This is akin to a DUI case I had about a decade ago. The trooper came upon my client on the side of the road. He advised him to drive up to the nearest gas station about a mile away and followed him there. He then arrested him for DUI. Why would he advise my client to violate the law and drive drunk and then cite for DUI? I lost that case but still think it's BS.
That sounds great Shawn if the party involved didn't know where they were at? I would believe your argument if
The unit is closed to branch bull hunting.
It is the individuals responsibility to know the law.
Those are facts.
What a mess. :bash:
If they would have just gone after a different bull.
In the end the only people that are going to be happy are the lawyers. What a shame.
I would do the same with or without the tag. If it would have been in an alfalfa field that was normally open I would have probably done the same as him. People would have been upset still but it would have been within the rules. Those people could then change the rules if they didn't like them.What a mess. :bash:
If they would have just gone after a different bull.
In the end the only people that are going to be happy are the lawyers. What a shame.
No kidding. If it was legal I would shoot a buck or bull in an alfalfa field any day of the week. But with that tag, the whole point is the opportunity it gives you. Go chase one!
I thought I previously read he is by definition a handicapped hunter???
If he was so set on this bull you would think he could have gotten a landowner damage permit???
If he was so set on this bull you would think he could have gotten a landowner damage permit???Not likely for a bull.
If he was so set on this bull you would think he could have gotten a landowner damage permit???Not in a GMU closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls.
If he was so set on this bull you would think he could have gotten a landowner damage permit???Not in a GMU closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls.
If he was so set on this bull you would think he could have gotten a landowner damage permit???Not in a GMU closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls.
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
Lots of things seem to have no bearing in this case or the thread.
I only brought it up because it may have had bearing on him just going and chasing one like the previous poster implied he could do.
Lots of things seem to have no bearing in this case or the thread.
I only brought it up because it may have had bearing on him just going and chasing one like the previous poster implied he could do.
He's killed so many mashers I can't see what the purpose of killing this one was.
If he was so set on this bull you would think he could have gotten a landowner damage permit???Not in a GMU closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls.
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
Lots of things seem to have no bearing in this case or the thread.
I only brought it up because it may have had bearing on him just going and chasing one like the previous poster implied he could do.
The guy hunts multiple states and killed a bull in the blues. He could chase one from a quad where legal, from horseback if able. I'm not saying he has to hump down a canyon and carry an elk out on his back but you would think with that tag you want to go after a bull that's at least off the highway. He's killed so many mashers I can't see what the purpose of killing this one was.
I hadn't stopped laughing from Dan-O's post when I got your yours.
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
WHAT???? Now that changes EVERYTHING...
I hadn't stopped laughing from Dan-O's post when I got your yours.
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
WHAT???? Now that changes EVERYTHING...
You guys are a deadly one two punch. Thanks for bringing some humor to this train wreck.
If he was so set on this bull you would think he could have gotten a landowner damage permit???Not in a GMU closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls.
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
Yes.
I hadn't stopped laughing from Dan-O's post when I got your yours.
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
WHAT???? Now that changes EVERYTHING...
You guys are a deadly one two punch. Thanks for bringing some humor to this train wreck.
I think they were serious........... :chuckle:
I hadn't stopped laughing from Dan-O's post when I got your yours.
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
WHAT???? Now that changes EVERYTHING...
You guys are a deadly one two punch. Thanks for bringing some humor to this train wreck.
I think they were serious........... :chuckle:
Of course he is, he's a member of the YAKASESSFGG...or whatever we call ourselves these days >:(
I hadn't stopped laughing from Dan-O's post when I got your yours.
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
WHAT???? Now that changes EVERYTHING...
You guys are a deadly one two punch. Thanks for bringing some humor to this train wreck.
I think they were serious........... :chuckle:
Of course he is, he's a member of the YAKASESSFGG...or whatever we call ourselves these days >:(
:yeah: :yeah: >:( >:( >:( >:(
I hadn't stopped laughing from Dan-O's post when I got your yours.
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
It "identified" as a True Spike!
WHAT???? Now that changes EVERYTHING...
You guys are a deadly one two punch. Thanks for bringing some humor to this train wreck.
I think they were serious........... :chuckle:
Of course he is, he's a member of the YAKASESSFGG...or whatever we call ourselves these days >:(
:yeah: :yeah: >:( >:( >:( >:(
Well then...... are we sure it was really a branch antlered bull?
It went the way of the recurve compound bow. Disappeared altogether.
I hadn't stopped laughing from Dan-O's post when I got your yours.
Wait..... Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?
WHAT???? Now that changes EVERYTHING...
You guys are a deadly one two punch. Thanks for bringing some humor to this train wreck.
I think they were serious........... :chuckle:
Of course he is, he's a member of the YAKASESSFGG...or whatever we call ourselves these days >:(
:yeah: :yeah: >:( >:( >:( >:(
Well then...... are we sure it was really a branch antlered bull?
Dare I ask.......
What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.
Dare I ask.......
What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.
We get it, or at least I do, they don't have the authority by law but If it turns out authority was given then he's walking.
Forum Rules & Policies
This forum is intended to be a family friendly and helpful venue for hunters, fishers, trappers, and other sportsmen. Unauthorized advertising is not allowed, contact forum management for available advertising opportunities. Forum management reserves the right to remove any member who violates the forum rules/policies or who in their opinion is actively working against the common interests of hunters or other sportsmen. This is a privately owned site with the following rules and policies:
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, name calling, belittling, threatening, negativity in success topics, unproven accusations, obscene, profanity or intended profanity, sexually oriented, adult material, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of any International, State, or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. You further agree that you are granting Hunting-Washington perpetual unrestricted use of your material. Spam, flooding, unauthorized advertising, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are not allowed on this forum.
Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of material. Please remember that we do not actively monitor all posted material, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, authenticity, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted material expresses the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that posted material or a private message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to edit or remove any content, if they determine that removal is needed it is a manual process so removal or editing may not occur immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.
You remain solely responsible for the content that you post. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint, legal, or lawful action arising from your use of this forum.
You have the ability, as you register, to choose a username under which you may post your material, only appropriate usernames will be allowed. You may only have one username and any change to your username requires preapproval by an administrator. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason. We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.
After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile and post content on the forum. It is your responsibility to present acceptable information and material. Your IP address is recorded and may be used in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted due to a major violation of this agreement.
Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.
All forum rules and policies are subject to administrative discretion and may be changed without notice at any time.
Thank You,
Forum Management Team
Also, I think someone confirmed on here that the 2007 incident resulted in a conviction for lying and not any game related convictions so this in a sense would be his 1st offense, if it holds up.
Dare I ask.......
What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.
As the incident occurred I heard from 2 people in the know and so far one of those people's story is starting to take shape and reveal itself to be accurate.
Right or wrong ethically doesn't matter in this incident. Legal vs illegal and what a jury or judge thinks is what's going to matter. If permission was given and the person(s) that gave that permission stick to their words then whether it was actually legal by the WAC or RCW isn't going to matter because the judge/jury are going to be swayed by the official (s) that authorized it.
Pope's posted already that it doesn't matter if they had the authority by law or not, with the officer telling an inebriated person to drive further down the road. Pope clearly stated he pushed that issue and it didn't work out for his client. The officer didn't have the authority per WAC/RCW to make that call but he did.
We get it, or at least I do, they don't have the authority by law but If it turns out authority was given then he's walking.
Great question, reply and comment. All three of you nailed it.Dare I ask.......
What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.
We get it, or at least I do, they don't have the authority by law but If it turns out authority was given then he's walking.
He walks WDFW might need an unlisted information phone number :dunno: :rolleyes:
Great question, reply and comment. All three of you nailed it.Dare I ask.......
What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.
We get it, or at least I do, they don't have the authority by law but If it turns out authority was given then he's walking.
He walks WDFW might need an unlisted information phone number :dunno: :rolleyes:
If that is what happened focus of anger over this incident will shift to the WDFW.
Also, I think someone confirmed on here that the 2007 incident resulted in a conviction for lying and not any game related convictions so this in a sense would be his 1st offense, if it holds up.
As a result of a plee, any good attorney will get his client a lesser charge in the end, than the one they are originally facing.
Don't think for a second a judge does not have all the facts/history in front of them while hearing a case. :twocents:
For sure, nobody wins in this one, it is an absolute mess. There will be plenty of blame to go around depending on what angle you are looking at it from. In reality there are a ton of people to blame. Todd, the guides, the landowner, WDFW, people who turned this animal into pretty much a pet, the list can go on and on.Great question, reply and comment. All three of you nailed it.Dare I ask.......
What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.
We get it, or at least I do, they don't have the authority by law but If it turns out authority was given then he's walking.
He walks WDFW might need an unlisted information phone number :dunno: :rolleyes:
If that is what happened focus of anger over this incident will shift to the WDFW.
My prediction if this goes down. You'll still have the crowd who remains pissed off at Mr. Reichert for even calling for permission in the first place.
(stand by. I'm putting on my flame retardant suit)
I'd say, once those bulls were domesticated they were doomed. If not Mr Reichert, then someone else probably would've. Let wild be wild.It's like deja vu all over again. I think you said this a couple of months ago in this thread or another one on the same topic. You're just not going to budge are you? Insert sarcasm emoji here. I agree with you 100%, they were doomed and something would have happened to them anyway.
To me Reichert's guilt or innocence is probably not as worrisome as what impact his taking of this bull (which by all accounts appears to have been a "pet", that had a name and that was fed regularly alfalfa hay in a fenced area by local kids) could have on legitimate hunters and hunting in general. Most of what I've read indicates this trophy was killed without any remote semblance of "fair chase" or any traditional notions of fair play or ethical hunting. So far, news of this episode has been kept fairly local and I'm hoping we don't end up with another "Cecil" incident once some anti-hunter individual or group uses social media to feign shock and outrage, which then spreads like wildfire and gets shared by others who chime in and paint all hunters as elitist and wealthy mass killers who care little for wildlife and animal rights.
Bullwinkle sounds more like a moose name anyway...It doesn't make sense, does it?
To me Reichert's guilt or innocence is probably not as worrisome as what impact his taking of this bull (which by all accounts appears to have been a "pet", that had a name and that was fed regularly alfalfa hay in a fenced area by local kids) could have on legitimate hunters and hunting in general. Most of what I've read indicates this trophy was killed without any remote semblance of "fair chase" or any traditional notions of fair play or ethical hunting. So far, news of this episode has been kept fairly local and I'm hoping we don't end up with another "Cecil" incident once some anti-hunter individual or group uses social media to feign shock and outrage, which then spreads like wildfire and gets shared by others who chime in and paint all hunters as elitist and wealthy mass killers who care little for wildlife and animal rights.
Well said.
To me Reichert's guilt or innocence is probably not as worrisome as what impact his taking of this bull (which by all accounts appears to have been a "pet", that had a name and that was fed regularly alfalfa hay in a fenced area by local kids) could have on legitimate hunters and hunting in general. Most of what I've read indicates this trophy was killed without any remote semblance of "fair chase" or any traditional notions of fair play or ethical hunting. So far, news of this episode has been kept fairly local and I'm hoping we don't end up with another "Cecil" incident once some anti-hunter individual or group uses social media to feign shock and outrage, which then spreads like wildfire and gets shared by others who chime in and paint all hunters as elitist and wealthy mass killers who care little for wildlife and animal rights.
Well said.
I agree, it's also worrisome that some hunters themselves have made this such a big deal that it will harm hunters in the end.
To me Reichert's guilt or innocence is probably not as worrisome as what impact his taking of this bull (which by all accounts appears to have been a "pet", that had a name and that was fed regularly alfalfa hay in a fenced area by local kids) could have on legitimate hunters and hunting in general. Most of what I've read indicates this trophy was killed without any remote semblance of "fair chase" or any traditional notions of fair play or ethical hunting. So far, news of this episode has been kept fairly local and I'm hoping we don't end up with another "Cecil" incident once some anti-hunter individual or group uses social media to feign shock and outrage, which then spreads like wildfire and gets shared by others who chime in and paint all hunters as elitist and wealthy mass killers who care little for wildlife and animal rights.
Well said.
I agree, it's also worrisome that some hunters themselves have made this such a big deal that it will harm hunters in the end.
Hunters made this a circus. I get it, he was in the wrong for shooting a domestic animal, but by blowing this outta proportion we may have made things worse. Who knows at this point. Hopefully larry, curly, Moe & rocky (the other pet bulls) learn from T his and stay away.
Though I heard wdfw bungled an attempted tranquilizing and had to put 1 of them down. Another waste of resources.
The main issue isn't how this bull elk was "domesticated" but that the elk tag the hunter used was not valid in the unit.
It's the same as if a guy with an eastern tag killed a bull in western Washington. It's illegal. Period. It's not that complicated.
The main issue isn't how this bull elk was "domesticated" but that the elk tag the hunter used was not valid in the unit.
It's the same as if a guy with an eastern tag killed a bull in western Washington. It's illegal. Period. It's not that complicated.
I don't suppose routine calls to WDFW are recorded for training purposes ?
There is a big difference, it's actually happened here on the west side. Errors were made, no charges were filed, but then again there wasn't the court of Huntwa to publicly crucify someone and assure their guilt. I wonder if the charges get dropped off there won't be a civil suit filed against the wdfw and the individuals who granted permission. I would think some of things posted on this forum would cause parties to settle and not want to go to trial.
There is a big difference, it's actually happened here on the west side. Errors were made, no charges were filed, but then again there wasn't the court of Huntwa to publicly crucify someone and assure their guilt. I wonder if the charges get dropped off there won't be a civil suit filed against the wdfw and the individuals who granted permission. I would think some of things posted on this forum would cause parties to settle and not want to go to trial.
Ahhhh th he good old hunt wa court. Remember the big bull that got poached in the green river watershed? Or was it the cedar river watershed? Or was it washougal? This place is and people are funny for sure....
Oops, remember when Agnew killed the non typical record, flew in and out killed the same day flying??? Blah blah blah..... the list goes on and on...
Wait........ was this bull shot with a full choke???
There is a big difference, it's actually happened here on the west side. Errors were made, no charges were filed, but then again there wasn't the court of Huntwa to publicly crucify someone and assure their guilt. I wonder if the charges get dropped off there won't be a civil suit filed against the wdfw and the individuals who granted permission. I would think some of things posted on this forum would cause parties to settle and not want to go to trial.
remember when Agnew killed the non typical record, flew in and out killed the same day flying??? Blah blah blah..... the list goes on and on...
There is a big difference, it's actually happened here on the west side. Errors were made, no charges were filed, but then again there wasn't the court of Huntwa to publicly crucify someone and assure their guilt. I wonder if the charges get dropped off there won't be a civil suit filed against the wdfw and the individuals who granted permission. I would think some of things posted on this forum would cause parties to settle and not want to go to trial.
remember when Agnew killed the non typical record, flew in and out killed the same day flying??? Blah blah blah..... the list goes on and on...
A non issue and completely irrelevant to this case, let's not get it twisted and stick to the facts.
There is a big difference, it's actually happened here on the west side. Errors were made, no charges were filed, but then again there wasn't the court of Huntwa to publicly crucify someone and assure their guilt. I wonder if the charges get dropped off there won't be a civil suit filed against the wdfw and the individuals who granted permission. I would think some of things posted on this forum would cause parties to settle and not want to go to trial.
remember when Agnew killed the non typical record, flew in and out killed the same day flying??? Blah blah blah..... the list goes on and on...
A non issue and completely irrelevant to this case, let's not get it twisted and stick to the facts.
I woulda much rather seen "Bullwinkle" ironed out on I-90 by a semi!!:yeah: agreed, it would have been the end of the story.
I simply cannot get my mind around what could have given anyone the notion that this was going to end well.
Let's hear it: Walk me through a scenario in which this was going to end well.
I simply cannot get my mind around what could have given anyone the notion that this was going to end well.
Let's hear it: Walk me through a scenario in which this was going to end well.
Lips shut. Animal on wall not facebook. Taken at firstlight. Landowner paid and happy, state paid and happy, hunter with trophy happy. Old elk musta finally passed away. End of story.
Imo not right nor legal but thats the scenario you would think he woulda followed.
No. He was wrong for shooting an animal in a closed unit. Quit trying to change the subject...
I cant believe some of you on here are defending this guy. Shameful and embarrassing for the hunting community. Thanks..
"IF" permission was given/authorized
"IF" permission was given/authorized
But what you fail to understand is that there is nobody within the WDFW that has that authorization, spin or no spin, that is fact!
So his, and his fans "defense" is nothing more than slight of hand, an attempt to lead everyone into a false direction.
He killed the bull in a closed unit. According to state law, there is nobody with authority that can change the regs with a phone call........everything else is spin!
"IF" permission was given/authorized
But what you fail to understand is that there is nobody within the WDFW that has that authorization, spin or no spin, that is fact!
So his, and his fans "defense" is nothing more than slight of hand, an attempt to lead everyone into a false direction.
He killed the bull in a closed unit. According to state law, there is nobody with authority that can change the regs with a phone call........everything else is spin!
"IF" permission was given/authorized
But what you fail to understand is that there is nobody within the WDFW that has that authorization, spin or no spin, that is fact!
So his, and his fans "defense" is nothing more than slight of hand, an attempt to lead everyone into a false direction.
He killed the bull in a closed unit. According to state law, there is nobody with authority that can change the regs with a phone call........everything else is spin!
But as I mentioned earlier...and hypothetically, if there was a phone call, and a WDFW game warden told Mr Reichert he had the approval and to go ahead and shoot the bull, who's fault is it at that point?
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: somebody else gets it. "IF" permission was given/authorized I honestly see him walking whether or not the official was legally authorized to by law.
As I said in every post I'm not defending, supporting or condoning his actions just stated what I believe will occur.
When I was looking into purchasing a new hunting bow I called WDFW for some clarifications on what were and weren't legal. They were surprisingly helpful and took their clarifications an purchased a bow.
Should I have not trusted the word of the WDFW employee who answered the phone? I know it's not exactly apples to apples and it's the individuals responsibility to know the law but when you don't know the law how else should you get clarification.
Whether or not he was told by a game official that it was ok doesn't seem to be known for a fact yet but if he was told it's ok it is hard for me to condemn him.
WDFW's fault I would say. That seems pretty simple to me, especially if they admit giving him permission."IF" permission was given/authorized
But what you fail to understand is that there is nobody within the WDFW that has that authorization, spin or no spin, that is fact!
So his, and his fans "defense" is nothing more than slight of hand, an attempt to lead everyone into a false direction.
He killed the bull in a closed unit. According to state law, there is nobody with authority that can change the regs with a phone call........everything else is spin!
But as I mentioned earlier...and hypothetically, if there was a phone call, and a WDFW game warden told Mr Reichert he had the approval and to go ahead and shoot the bull, who's fault is it at that point?
I'm curious how many times he's bought the tag in the past and what are the credentials of the "guides" involved? I find it really hard to believe none of them knew the regs for the tag and gmu and therefore had to call wdfw. :dunno:Me too, but........none of that will matter if someone really did give them the go ahead and is willing to admit to it.
:yeah: "IF" permission was granted, that's what it's going to boil down to. It says per rcw/wac who can and can't but the enforcement/regulatory arm of the State allegedly gave permission whether they had the authority or not.Exactly, and that should be the end of this thread, period. Simple in my mind.
"IF" they own up to it then the argument is they did and why should he be held at fault "IF" they did. WDFW is in my opinion the at-fault party in this for allegedly authoring this incident.
Sure, this gentleman had a part in this, but the fault lies with the agency for allegedly authoring it knowing full well rcw/wac stated they didn't have that authority.
Essentially, he's got a "get out of jail" free card and he's using it. This gentleman and his "guides" knew the regs, knew the boundaries, knew what weapon, but the alleged permission is what's the turning point.
Me too jerry, but the whining will continue ...:chuckle: lol, amen brother!
Should be a piece of cake for him to prove, all he has to do is hand over the recording or get the WDFW agent to admit it under oath.There so many "if's" to this but "if" that happens this thread will absolutely blow up. There will have to be two mods assigned to this thread just to cover it around the clock.
When I was looking into purchasing a new hunting bow I called WDFW for some clarifications on what were and weren't legal. They were surprisingly helpful and took their clarifications an purchased a bow.
Should I have not trusted the word of the WDFW employee who answered the phone? I know it's not exactly apples to apples and it's the individuals responsibility to know the law but when you don't know the law how else should you get clarification.
Whether or not he was told by a game official that it was ok doesn't seem to be known for a fact yet but if he was told it's ok it is hard for me to condemn him.
When I was looking into purchasing a new hunting bow I called WDFW for some clarifications on what were and weren't legal. They were surprisingly helpful and took their clarifications an purchased a bow.
Should I have not trusted the word of the WDFW employee who answered the phone? I know it's not exactly apples to apples and it's the individuals responsibility to know the law but when you don't know the law how else should you get clarification.
Whether or not he was told by a game official that it was ok doesn't seem to be known for a fact yet but if he was told it's ok it is hard for me to condemn him.
Somehow I doubt the information they gave you was in direct contradiction to what is available other places, but I could be wrong.
No clarification needed on this simple issue! Closed gmu for branched antler bulls. My 6 year old understands it, why can't 257 and everyone excusing this poaching incident understand no call was needed in the first place. How many gov tags has he had and he's dense enough to not understand something so simple :yike:
It is that simple. That's not the issue, what I'm raising is the strong possibility that "IF" he got the okay from wdfw he's more than likely walking. Not denying he nor his "guides" didn't know as I'm sure they knew but the fact that "IF" he allegedly got permission from an official that was legally per rcw/wac not authorized to do so then the brunt of the responsibility is wdfw's. A judge or jury that hears from an wdfw official that they authorized it willfully knowing that per rcw/wac they couldn't but still did are accepting the responsibility for changing the tag requirements. Even though they can't per rcw/wac. Any judge/jury is going to say it was his responsibility to know, but he was given permission by an official of wdfw and he should share the responsibility on his behalf but again, he was authorized to.
No clarification needed on this simple issue! Closed gmu for branched antler bulls. My 6 year old understands it, why can't 257 and everyone excusing this poaching incident understand no call was needed in the first place. How many gov tags has he had and he's dense enough to not understand something so simple :yike:
No clarification needed on this simple issue! Closed gmu for branched antler bulls. My 6 year old understands it, why can't 257 and everyone excusing this poaching incident understand no call was needed in the first place. How many gov tags has he had and he's dense enough to not understand something so simple :yike:
Fine. $1 says they get a stern talking to! :chuckle:
I keep asking and all I have seen so far can easily be recognized as fallacious arguments consisting exclusively of reductio ad absurdum or offers to burn down yet another straw man.
I suspect the call didn't go like either scenario. Something tells me that the call coincidentally went after an unsuccessful and rather unfortunate incident involving the death of one of the other pets and when the call was made it was asking permission to fulfill the raffle tag since they were trying to move the pets anyways and bungled a previous attempt.
Subsequently, resulting in the official as previously stated said they would call back as they needed to find out from the powers above if that tag holder would be approved to kill one of the pets. The call was returned stating he was given authorization and he proceeded forward.
So, why no uproar over the other pet dying twisted in barb wire fencing and having to be put down?
Having been the recipient of a incentive tag I know mine came with a detailed letter explaining all the open units , maps and restrictions for that particular hunt, also included were the names and phone numbers of the game department contacts for the hunt, with my tag I had to call in and report each day were I was hunting, no wiggle room for a person to say they didn't know the stipulations of the hunt, the tag holder is ultimately responsible for making sure the the hunt is legal, there was no baiting for a particular answer allowed, it was pretty black and white.
A poll would be interesting. Simple yes or no. Walk or no walk. My money is he walks with zero repurcussions.start the poll! He will walk, IF fish and game acknowledge that they gave him permission!
How can you do a poll when nobody (except JDHasty) knows all the exact facts. The poll would ask... What do you think the facts are and assuming you think you know the facts what do you think 6 random people that you don't know will find for the defendant if this case ever gets to trial...?Im thinking the poll could be," if the Wdfw gave the guy permission, is he guilty of poaching or any crime"?
No clarification needed on this simple issue! Closed gmu for branched antler bulls. My 6 year old understands it, why can't 257 and everyone excusing this poaching incident understand no call was needed in the first place. How many gov tags has he had and he's dense enough to not understand something so simple :yike:
Some of you guys its just cut and dry, hopefully you guys don't ever get jammed up!!....
And here we go, " how many governor tags has he had"?? Though most of you will never admit it, if the tables were turned and it was a everyday Joe that did this, it woulda only been a couple pages. Because of the accused is who he is, Tod is held to a higher standard.. He's gonna walk...
How can you do a poll when nobody (except JDHasty) knows all the exact facts. The poll would ask... What do you think the facts are and assuming you think you know the facts what do you think 6 random people that you don't know will find for the defendant if this case ever gets to trial...?
My word, this is the train that just keeps on wrecking. Why not let it die for a while until the judge has a say?
I simply cannot get my mind around what could have given anyone the notion that this was going to end well.
Let's hear it: Walk me through a scenario in which this was going to end well.
Lips shut. Animal on wall not facebook. Taken at firstlight. Landowner paid and happy, state paid and happy, hunter with trophy happy. Old elk musta finally passed away. End of story.
Imo not right nor legal but thats the scenario you would think he woulda followed.
I simply cannot get my mind around what could have given anyone the notion that this was going to end well.
Let's hear it: Walk me through a scenario in which this was going to end well.
Lips shut. Animal on wall not facebook. Taken at firstlight. Landowner paid and happy, state paid and happy, hunter with trophy happy. Old elk musta finally passed away. End of story.
Imo not right nor legal but thats the scenario you would think he woulda followed.
The fact is that in the days that followed there was posting of photos online bragging as well as boasting in the local watering holes.
If you think this did not char the hind end of a heck of a lot of locals who knew that this bull was there, but it was not legal to kill him... you are not living in the real world. Once word started to circulate of the location in which the bull was shot their butts were burnt to a crisp.
IMHO, the perps tried to slip in after most people had left for the day, drop the bull, load him into the bed of a truck without leaving any evidence, and GTH outa' GMU 334 before anyone was wise to what had transpired.
I simply cannot get my mind around what could have given anyone the notion that this was going to end well.
Let's hear it: Walk me through a scenario in which this was going to end well.
Lips shut. Animal on wall not facebook. Taken at firstlight. Landowner paid and happy, state paid and happy, hunter with trophy happy. Old elk musta finally passed away. End of story.
Imo not right nor legal but thats the scenario you would think he woulda followed.
The fact is that in the days that followed there was posting of photos online bragging as well as boasting in the local watering holes.
If you think this did not char the hind end of a heck of a lot of locals who knew that this bull was there, but it was not legal to kill him... you are not living in the real world. Once word started to circulate of the location in which the bull was shot their butts were burnt to a crisp.
IMHO, the perps tried to slip in after most people had left for the day, drop the bull, load him into the bed of a truck without leaving any evidence, and GTH outa' GMU 334 before anyone was wise to what had transpired.
I notice folks are worried, well some folks are, worried about this whole incident giving hunting a "black eye". Well, nothing is pretty or kind about killin, it is what it is, but it's not pretty period.... some have smeared this case far and wide to further they're agenda, whatever that may be. The funny thing is they only get mileage here... is it a wolf in sheeps clothing???
I have read that he's a handicapped hunter, What is his disability & does he have a sticker?
Anybody else not really care that he shot a pet? Honestly, he can have all the pets he wants just leave the wild ones alone as I'd like to get them. :tup:
This is a forum not a "CASE".
Obviously their are physical limitations at the hunter's age.
Was thinking disabled get special privileges. Not sure it would pertain to the case.I have read that he's a handicapped hunter, What is his disability & does he have a sticker?
Curious how that's relevant to this case? Or were you just curious about that?
Was thinking disabled get special privileges. Not sure it would pertain to the case.I have read that he's a handicapped hunter, What is his disability & does he have a sticker?
Curious how that's relevant to this case? Or were you just curious about that?
This is a forum not a "CASE".
Obviously their are physical limitations at the hunter's age.
If you haven't noticed this thread is about a particular case. And whether Todd is disabled or has physical limitations affects this case how? Not at all from what I can see!
:dunno:This is a forum not a "CASE".
Obviously their are physical limitations at the hunter's age.
If you haven't noticed this thread is about a particular case. And whether Todd is disabled or has physical limitations affects this case how? Not at all from what I can see!
Toledo is a small town isn't it?
This is a forum not a "CASE".
Obviously their are physical limitations at the hunter's age.
If you haven't noticed this thread is about a particular case. And whether Todd is disabled or has physical limitations affects this case how? Not at all from what I can see!
Toledo is a small town isn't it?
The topic of locking this thread again has been brought up by the mod's for discussion again. Name calling and meaningless insults need to stop or the lock will happen.
Please keep that in mind moving forward.
The topic of locking this thread again has been brought up by the mod's for discussion again. Name calling and meaningless insults need to stop or the lock will happen.
Please keep that in mind moving forward.
I understand how difficult it can be for the mods to stay on top of this. But it would be a shame to punish the majority because of the minority. What about just coming down a little harder on the offenders?
The topic of locking this thread again has been brought up by the mod's for discussion again. Name calling and meaningless insults need to stop or the lock will happen.
Please keep that in mind moving forward.
I understand how difficult it can be for the mods to stay on top of this. But it would be a shame to punish the majority because of the minority. What about just coming down a little harder on the offenders?
There have been entire threads on this topic deleted, there have been multiple members banned, probably a dozen warnings thrown out and multiple posts in this thread warning others.
Not sure how much more we can do to get folks to cooperate. We all have jobs, lives, families, etc. We don't get paid to do this contrary to what might be popular belief. We are not babysitters and the adults on here participating in this thread should be able to realize that. If they can't, I'm afraid we can't help.
I personally don't see any value of keeping this open. The same people keep repeating the same "facts", same theories as to why this happened, theories on what was going through peoples minds, and even speculating on the mental health of the folks involved.
However, money is to be made by internet page views, and this topic, along with other useless threads like "Bigfoot", "Word Association Game" and "Chain Reaction Game", all generate consistent numbers of views, and money. I can't blame anyone for keeping them going, despite their uselessness.
This is a forum not a "CASE".
Obviously their are physical limitations at the hunter's age.
If you haven't noticed this thread is about a particular case. And whether Todd is disabled or has physical limitations affects this case how? Not at all from what I can see!
Toledo is a small town isn't it?
Sure is. Whatcha getting at?
I personally don't see any value of keeping this open. The same people keep repeating the same "facts", same theories as to why this happened, theories on what was going through peoples minds, and even speculating on the mental health of the folks involved.
However, money is to be made by internet page views, and this topic, along with other useless threads like "Bigfoot", "Word Association Game" and "Chain Reaction Game", all generate consistent numbers of views, and money. I can't blame anyone for keeping them going, despite their uselessness.
I normally agree with you on most everything, Dave...but I gotta disagree on this one. I don't see a problem with a few threads where folks are having a good time and not starting trouble or endlessly complaining about things. The last 3 threads you mentioned are the ones I'm referring to. This isn't exactly a cash cow for anyone. What I mean by that is I'm pretty sure this forum barely makes enough money as it stands for Dale to not have to pay out of pocket to keep it up and running.
You're not looking hard enough if you haven't seen pics of Bullwinkle or Bigfoot. :twocents:
Number of pictures I have seen of Bullwinkle 0
Number of pictures I have seen of Bigfoot 0
So far I rate both threads equal. Neither has pictures so I choose not to believe :chuckle: :chuckle:
Now if we are talking the animated Bullwinkle of my youth, Big fan :)
You're not looking hard enough if you haven't seen pics of Bullwinkle or Bigfoot. :twocents:
Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!
Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!
See this is where I finally have to disagree with you. I have followed this well before it even became a thread. And JD I have pretty much agreed with 99% of what you have said through all 3 threads.Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!
Read the text in the post. ;)
The photos make it even more clear that this individual was not in any way going to ever show up in the field as a fair chase trophy elk.
He is what he lived his life out as, a steer with bigger than normal elk antlers.
This guy never fought for anything, much less keeping a nimrod from putting a bullet into his ribs.
He lucked out when he was a spike. There is no more glory in killing him with a muzzle loader that there is in holding the bolt gun in a feed bolt operation.
No one goes home after converting a steer into tomorrow's offering at Whole Foods than they do when they send wieners off to Hormel. For God's sake, let us put shooting a bull in a hay meadow into perspective.
He never was a hunting trophy and he never will be. His place in Boone & Crocket holds no more significance than does a monster steer.
He is, and never was going to be a "hunting trophy."
I'm a little late to the game but wasn't this a high fence hunt?
I'm a little late to the game but wasn't this a high fence hunt?
No
JD....how does degrading the animal help your case ?
I'm a little late to the game but wasn't this a high fence hunt?
No
OK different bull then.
Coulda swore I've seen that image somewhere and was trying to place it. I read a thread here a few years back with a bull on a road like that and it was a high fence hunt.
Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!
The last pic is a different bull from a different auction tag.
Keep fighting the good fight JD! :tup:
Then why not let the cards fall where they may? Why keep harassing and repeating yourself?Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!
The last pic is a different bull from a different auction tag.
Keep fighting the good fight JD! :tup:
What I post as truth are now validated. What I said was coming has given me confidence that my intuitions were correct. I am still skeptical that there exculpatory evidence. But any "fight" I had is over. The evidence will decide guilt or innocence. I am skeptical of any exculpatory evidence, but it is that will decide guilt or innocence, if this goes to trial, and I have said such all along: If there is probable cause then I encourage vigorous prosecution. Charges filed implies probable cause, let's give me reason to not acquit before you commit me to a certain outcome. Please.
Up to this point I am satisfied that justice has been done. I am skeptical, but my mind is open to whether there was permission given. That being said: Knowing what I know, legalities aside, this simply was not going to end well.
Then why not let the cards fall where they may? Why keep harassing and repeating yourself?Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!
The last pic is a different bull from a different auction tag.
Keep fighting the good fight JD! :tup:
What I post as truth are now validated. What I said was coming has given me confidence that my intuitions were correct. I am still skeptical that there exculpatory evidence. But any "fight" I had is over. The evidence will decide guilt or innocence. I am skeptical of any exculpatory evidence, but it is that will decide guilt or innocence, if this goes to trial, and I have said such all along: If there is probable cause then I encourage vigorous prosecution. Charges filed implies probable cause, let's give me reason to not acquit before you commit me to a certain outcome. Please.
Up to this point I am satisfied that justice has been done. I am skeptical, but my mind is open to whether there was permission given. That being said: Knowing what I know, legalities aside, this simply was not going to end well.
Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!
Read the text in the post. ;)
The photos make it even more clear that this individual was not in any way going to ever show up in the field as a fair chase trophy elk.
He is what he lived his life out as, a steer with bigger than normal elk antlers.
This guy never fought for anything, much less keeping a nimrod from putting a bullet into his ribs.
He lucked out when he was a spike. There is no more glory in killing him with a muzzle loader that there is in holding the bolt gun in a feed bolt operation.
No one goes home after converting a steer into tomorrow's offering at Whole Foods than they do when they send wieners off to Hormel. For God's sake, let us put shooting a bull in a hay meadow into perspective.
He never was a hunting trophy and he never will be. His place in Boone & Crocket holds no more significance than does a monster steer.
He is, and never was going to be a "hunting trophy."
The point I am trying to make, although I admit, clumsily, is that so log as B&C and others recognize a "steer with big elk antlers," there will be a population that wants to be recognized as a "hunter among hunters" who took it as a personal challenge.... when it was nothing of the sort.
What to do? I really don't care, one mature bull is no more significant than another mature herd bull, in my esteem. What matters is the effort and dedication. I know the what criteria I use to evaluate a hunter/trophy. But that is a pretty subjective measure and while it works for me... there will always be those who idolize a hunter by how big in inches of horn.
But I digress, what ever gave anybody the notion that this would end well? By that I mean provide any value to a hunting career that was worth the risk of throwing every thing that went before that was of value away.
I personally don't see any value of keeping this open. The same people keep repeating the same "facts", same theories as to why this happened, theories on what was going through peoples minds, and even speculating on the mental health of the folks involved.
However, money is to be made by internet page views, and this topic, along with other useless threads like "Bigfoot", "Word Association Game" and "Chain Reaction Game", all generate consistent numbers of views, and money. I can't blame anyone for keeping them going, despite their uselessness.
I normally agree with you on most everything, Dave...but I gotta disagree on this one. I don't see a problem with a few threads where folks are having a good time and not starting trouble or endlessly complaining about things. The last 3 threads you mentioned are the ones I'm referring to. This isn't exactly a cash cow for anyone. What I mean by that is I'm pretty sure this forum barely makes enough money as it stands for Dale to not have to pay out of pocket to keep it up and running.
I'm quite sure that nobody is getting rich off of this site, but the truth is that these threads do generate clicks, views, and responses that at least help the site break even financially. I don't blame anyone at all. I personally don't look at the three threads I mentioned after I checked them out for the first time. Sure, people are having fun, but I personally don't see any value or entertainment in the three threads I mentioned.
As far as this topic, there have been LOTS of warnings (certainly more than a dozen), no real useful dialogue, and a few other threads shut down due to the risk of lawsuits. Why keep this one alive? It's been beaten to death, is riskier than other topics, and probably takes a LOT of time to moderate, with nothing of value coming out of it.
Why keep it alive despite all this? The reason is simple, it helps to generate income for the site, and I don't blame anyone for that. Without 70+ pages, thousands of views, the site may be losing money instead of breaking even. Things always get down to money, and when the risk of losing money through legal action becomes greater than the benefit of clicks, this thread will be shut down and another one started. That's business. I can't believe that the reason this thread remains open is out of the goodness of the owner to provide a place for frustrated hunters to vent or be entertained. This site is not a social program, it's here to provide some value to the owner. Always.
I'm with you right up until this last bit, JD. It's not always about how steep and deep you go for an animal. What makes a trophy for you could be vastly different for me. One of my favorite deer was shot just 30 yards from my dad's house. I waited less than 8 minutes for it to come into the pasture. It was the absolute easiest hunt I've even done. Why is it my favorite? because it was the first time my daughter was with me when i killed a deer. We'd hunted a lot but never killed a deer until that day. She was 5. it was a reward of sorts, for her spending the whole previous year in the blind and still hunting with me with no success. He was just a little velvet 3 point, but he's a trophy to me and my daughter. His antlers are above her bed as we speak.
So the ease of the hunt is not the issue I have with this scenario. The man shot the animal in a closed unit. End of story. He should face the same punishment any of us would had we done the same thing. How comfortable the elk was has no bearing on the case for me, only that Mr. Reichert broke the law, and likely willfully! THAT'S why it upsets me.
So that isnt and won't ever be a trophy, but the other field/front yard bull killed with bait nearby is a trophy?
To me Reichert's guilt or innocence is probably not as worrisome as what impact his taking of this bull (which by all accounts appears to have been a "pet", that had a name and that was fed regularly alfalfa hay in a fenced area by local kids) could have on legitimate hunters and hunting in general. Most of what I've read indicates this trophy was killed without any remote semblance of "fair chase" or any traditional notions of fair play or ethical hunting. So far, news of this episode has been kept fairly local and I'm hoping we don't end up with another "Cecil" incident once some anti-hunter individual or group uses social media to feign shock and outrage, which then spreads like wildfire and gets shared by others who chime in and paint all hunters as elitist and wealthy mass killers who care little for wildlife and animal rights.
Well said.
I agree, it's also worrisome that some hunters themselves have made this such a big deal that it will harm hunters in the end.
To me Reichert's guilt or innocence is probably not as worrisome as what impact his taking of this bull (which by all accounts appears to have been a "pet", that had a name and that was fed regularly alfalfa hay in a fenced area by local kids) could have on legitimate hunters and hunting in general. Most of what I've read indicates this trophy was killed without any remote semblance of "fair chase" or any traditional notions of fair play or ethical hunting. So far, news of this episode has been kept fairly local and I'm hoping we don't end up with another "Cecil" incident once some anti-hunter individual or group uses social media to feign shock and outrage, which then spreads like wildfire and gets shared by others who chime in and paint all hunters as elitist and wealthy mass killers who care little for wildlife and animal rights.
Well said.
I agree, it's also worrisome that some hunters themselves have made this such a big deal that it will harm hunters in the end.
It is a sad day when hunters who simply want the laws enforced are blamed for this mess. If we don't have rule of law we lose hunting altogether.
No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.
No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.
No offense taken.
I just don't like seeing cases tried on the internet. I've seen too many cases where a good person was smeared because someone had really solid 4th hand information.
* I don't know this guy or anything about the hunt. I have no dog in this hunt.
** I am all for conducting legal hunts and prosecuting scofflaws.
*** if you're ever back in Kent, look me up. 18-26
No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.
No offense taken.
I just don't like seeing cases tried on the internet. I've seen too many cases where a good person was smeared because someone had really solid 4th hand information.
* I don't know this guy or anything about the hunt. I have no dog in this hunt.
** I am all for conducting legal hunts and prosecuting scofflaws.
*** if you're ever back in Kent, look me up. 18-26
Most of us are only concerned with the one indisputable fact, the bull was killed in a closed (as per state regulations) unit. ;)
No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.
No offense taken.
I just don't like seeing cases tried on the internet. I've seen too many cases where a good person was smeared because someone had really solid 4th hand information.
* I don't know this guy or anything about the hunt. I have no dog in this hunt.
** I am all for conducting legal hunts and prosecuting scofflaws.
*** if you're ever back in Kent, look me up. 18-26
Most of us are only concerned with the one indisputable fact, the bull was killed in a closed (as per state regulations) unit. ;)
Understood...... and I hope that justice is served.
But, I've seen other cases of good people on here that were falsely accused. I think I even remember someone trying to call you out for some nonsense about not owning land that you were posting and trying to keep others off of (apple orchard incident).
Now, what little I know of you tells me that you're as honest and upstanding a guy as there is. But that doesn't stop internet conjecture.
And while the one "indisputable fact" might be just that, if we weren't there it just seems dangerous to do internet sleuthery.
I have a lot of respect for some of the folks taking your exact position - you are one of them.
I'd just rather it worked it's way through the actual court rather than the internet court of opinions...... but it may be just a tad late for that. :chuckle:
No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.
No offense taken.
I just don't like seeing cases tried on the internet. I've seen too many cases where a good person was smeared because someone had really solid 4th hand information.
* I don't know this guy or anything about the hunt. I have no dog in this hunt.
** I am all for conducting legal hunts and prosecuting scofflaws.
*** if you're ever back in Kent, look me up. 18-26
Most of us are only concerned with the one indisputable fact, the bull was killed in a closed (as per state regulations) unit. ;)
Understood...... and I hope that justice is served.
But, I've seen other cases of good people on here that were falsely accused. I think I even remember someone trying to call you out for some nonsense about not owning land that you were posting and trying to keep others off of (apple orchard incident).
Now, what little I know of you tells me that you're as honest and upstanding a guy as there is. But that doesn't stop internet conjecture.
And while the one "indisputable fact" might be just that, if we weren't there it just seems dangerous to do internet sleuthery.
I have a lot of respect for some of the folks taking your exact position - you are one of them.
I'd just rather it worked it's way through the actual court rather than the internet court of opinions...... but it may be just a tad late for that. :chuckle:
:tup:
Where the discussion will get interesting is after a verdict is reached. If he ends up getting permission from the state, there will be a lot of pissed off people speculating that the only reason is because of his "contributions", which although admirable, should not grant him exemptions to printed rules/laws that everyone else has been mandated to follow.
It's certainly going to be a lesson one way or the other. ;)
His post was in response to JDHasty's long post about the Reichert bull being tame.
The other hunt seems similar from that perspective.
Personally, I think both bulls are trophy specimens for their species...... but neither rates very high on my fair chase meter.
But, legal is legal, and I won't condemn someone for picking up an easy animal as long as it's legal.
I know that I have picked up more than my fair share of easy animals but they aren't my true trophies.
Here is the bull I was referring to.
(photo removed at owner request)
Kiticaashunter why do you and all the other people defending TR continually keep bringing this hunt up and comparing the two. There is one big difference this bull was killed in a LEGAL unit. Let me say that again it was killed in a LEGAL unit. This bull was not shoot over bait, but if it would have been it still would have been LEGAL. How many other hunters had tried to get this bull through the years and have been unsuccessful. There were numerous tags available for branched antler bulls in this open and LEGAL unit.
Oh wait I know why you guys keep bringing it up. You wanna try to deflect away from the issue being discussed. You guys aren't happy that someone else got this particular bull because Todd really wanted to get this bull as he hunted it in the prior weeks and had planned to go back after it with the auction tag.
So quit trying to compare these hunts. One was in a LEGAL and open hunting unit and one was in a closed hunting unit to branched antler bulls which equals not LEGAL.
If 334 was an open unit to branched antler bulls and Todd shoot the bull he did I could of cared less as probably 90% of the other people commenting on this thread
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Here is the bull I was referring to.
(photo removed at owner request)
Not sure why the pic was deleted? It says it was by owner request? This is a pic that is available on the internet in many places. By posting it no rules of this forum were broken. This is just another tame front yard bull, and in this case bait was used. So l once again here is the pic.
If this gets removed again please provide a legitimate reason for doing so. Not a single one of your rules was broken the first time I posted it or this time.
This bull is not relevant to the thread and as stated the owner requested it's removal . No other explanation needed, please do not post a 3rd time.
How are they relevant? Here are the facts.Here is the bull I was referring to.
(photo removed at owner request)
Not sure why the pic was deleted? It says it was by owner request? This is a pic that is available on the internet in many places. By posting it no rules of this forum were broken. This is just another tame front yard bull, and in this case bait was used. So l once again here is the pic.
If this gets removed again please provide a legitimate reason for doing so. Not a single one of your rules was broken the first time I posted it or this time.
This bull is not relevant to the thread and as stated the owner requested it's removal . No other explanation needed, please do not post a 3rd time.
Relevancy is a matter of opinion. I think there is alot that can be compared in th e two. And I guess you don't need to give me another reason for its removal. The other pics stay up even as the author was asked to remove them? I guess the owner can make his own choices on this. Discrimination is a nasty and illegal thing, and this thread has touched or crossed that line.
How are they relevant? Here are the facts.Here is the bull I was referring to.
(photo removed at owner request)
Not sure why the pic was deleted? It says it was by owner request? This is a pic that is available on the internet in many places. By posting it no rules of this forum were broken. This is just another tame front yard bull, and in this case bait was used. So l once again here is the pic.
If this gets removed again please provide a legitimate reason for doing so. Not a single one of your rules was broken the first time I posted it or this time.
This bull is not relevant to the thread and as stated the owner requested it's removal . No other explanation needed, please do not post a 3rd time.
Relevancy is a matter of opinion. I think there is alot that can be compared in th e two. And I guess you don't need to give me another reason for its removal. The other pics stay up even as the author was asked to remove them? I guess the owner can make his own choices on this. Discrimination is a nasty and illegal thing, and this thread has touched or crossed that line.
1. One bull was shot in a gmu you that is not opened to branched antler bulls. The other bull was shot in a unit that there were 54 branched antler bull tags given out last year.
2. One bull was under investigation of the Wdfw and the other one never had any investigation.
3. One bull investigation was sent to the prosecutors office and charges were filled the other bull was never investigated.
4. The person who shot one bull has a court date and the other bull was still never investigated.
So the me again how they are relevant. As I stated before is the bull was shot in an open gmu there wouldn't of been 3 threads on this and nobody would of cared
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
It was a legal hunt with no legal issues pending . The owner asked that it not be posted . They have the right to ask this and any other website where it is posted . We respected that request and will continue to do do. You are the only one making the comparison and frankly it is childish and tiresome .
Here is the bull I was referring to.
(photo removed at owner request)
Not sure why the pic was deleted? It says it was by owner request? This is a pic that is available on the internet in many places. By posting it no rules of this forum were broken. This is just another tame front yard bull, and in this case bait was used. So l once again here is the pic.
If this gets removed again please provide a legitimate reason for doing so. Not a single one of your rules was broken the first time I posted it or this time.
( photo removed at request of owner )
Here is the bull I was referring to.
(photo removed at owner request)
Not sure why the pic was deleted? It says it was by owner request? This is a pic that is available on the internet in many places. By posting it no rules of this forum were broken. This is just another tame front yard bull, and in this case bait was used. So l once again here is the pic.
If this gets removed again please provide a legitimate reason for doing so. Not a single one of your rules was broken the first time I posted it or this time.
( photo removed at request of owner )
You messaged me and I explained that the photo was removed at the owners request. I informed you that I have no idea who you are so your requests to remove Reichert's photos have no bearing. If you are a friend of Todd Reichert's please let him that I invited him to join the forum and tell his side of the story. I also provided you with my email and phone number so Mr Reichert can request removal of his photos if he chooses not to join the forum. I have made it abundantly clear that I am neutral on this issue and believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. If Todd Reichert sees any particular post that contains untruthful information tell him to let me know and it will be removed.
Any word on the court activities today? :dunno:
I saw on the county website that there were two court dates in the near future.Any word on the court activities today? :dunno:
Was wondering the same thing.
I hope it gets moved to Upper county district court, I'm have jury duty for the month, court cases on held on ThursdaysSomehow I think you just got elliminated. :dunno: :chuckle: :sry:
Pre-trial has been moved out to, IIRC, June 21
M-Ray your such a little gossip queen please tell me who told me to stop f-ing with that bull ??? As I have said earlier I had no part in guiding TR on that hunt since I had been archery hunting the two weeks prior in the Okanogan. I was ask if I would help gut and cape the bull for TR. So yes I'm guilty for helping a friend.that's a funny statement. Who's muzzleloader did he use to kill the bull? I am resending the other part of the post because your right I could be wrong. But I think you may have a twin. :chuckle:.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do hunting rights get suspended for a case like this? This may have been discussed before but I would assume he can hunt unless he is found guilty.
Pre-trial has been moved out to, IIRC, June 21
Jet kicking the can down the road so he can hunt this fall! :bash:
Anybody check draw results this morning?Yeah I drew the branched antler bull tag for gmu 334
Be sure to let us know how the hunt goes. :tup:Anybody check draw results this morning?Yeah I drew the branched antler bull tag for gmu 334
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
You are gonna want to use a muzzle loader or bow in that unit, unless you can get someone on the phone to say it is okay to use a high powered rifle.Anybody check draw results this morning?Yeah I drew the branched antler bull tag for gmu 334
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Might wanna' have your trusted hunting consultants handle the call for ya'You are gonna want to use a muzzle loader or bow in that unit, unless you can get someone on the phone to say it is okay to use a high powered rifle.Anybody check draw results this morning?Yeah I drew the branched antler bull tag for gmu 334
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
You are gonna want to use a muzzle loader or bow in that unit, unless you can get someone on the phone to say it is okay to use a high powered rifle.Anybody check draw results this morning?Yeah I drew the branched antler bull tag for gmu 334
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Don't worry guys I got everything covered. Been on the phone and Google earth all afternoon. Damn this 334 unit looks step and deep. Time to get into some shape. I talk to a few guides today and I ended up hiring twisted horn outfitter. Check out there website and a the trophy's they have gotten. He told me we should be able to get a big book Roosevelt elk out of there. And that's what I want. I also wanted this hunt to be well documented so I have been searching camera crews to film the hunt. After a few phone calls a Google searches I found my guy. He had a show called trophy state of mind, even though he was usually the main hunter but he told me he had plenty of camera experience. I told him his stuff looks good so hired him. He also told me he knew where all the good public land was in the 334. So this is looking like it is going to be a fantastic hunt I will keep you guys updated with the prep work and scouting trips on this once in a lifetime hunt.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
emac, Here is a easy way to get it to an adjoining unit for processing.That looks alot easier than than the Google earth images I am seeing. I could put my 4 year old daughter out there just don't shoot her leg off :D :D
how do you guys know hes guilty?
Well, of course he's guilty. He was tried and convicted in the court of HW. That's the only court system that matters. ;)
i would say f thats the case the hunter isnt guilty of anything more than being miss led.
i didnt see that in the story i read. must have missed it, that would make casting preliminary judgement on this guy even worse. if a WDFW employee did in fact tell him he could shoot the bull i would hope all charges are dropped and that emplyee (if in the wrong) faces consiquinses. i would say f thats the case the hunter isnt guilty of anything more than being miss led. the anger should be directed towards the department.
The fact, you assume. :dunno:i would say f thats the case the hunter isnt guilty of anything more than being miss led.
Misled? Absolutely not!
If in fact a call was made asking for permission, which I highly doubt is the case, the fact that they even made a call at all suggests that they read the regs, understood the regs, and where looking for some way around them.
There may have been a phone call made, but if indeed there was one, I would bet it was more in line in asking about firearm restrictions, and not with full disclosure that they were targeting a branched antler bull in a closed unit. :twocents:
I suppose the argument would then be the official with f&g must have known the regs better and told them they are good. Regardless it sure is a different story than loaded up and driven to another gmus like the herald wrote and then every one and there brother handed down a guilty verdict on.it is written word though so it must be true.
My origanal question stands. How do you guys know he's guilty? Trial over yet? Even start?
Another "First" post again trying to muddy the waters?
Some first poster may know a little more than you think. Just seeing what everybody else "knew" is all. No muddy waterSeems the most important thing that's been established is a branch antler bull was killed in 334. It is illegal to kill a branch antler bull in 334.
Some first poster may know a little more than you think. Just seeing what everybody else "knew" is all. No muddy waterSeems the most important thing that's been established is a branch antler bull was killed in 334. It is illegal to kill a branch antler bull in 334.
I'd focus on that. None of the other stuff matters.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If a unit isn't a true spike unit a branched antler bull can be harvested one side needs to be a spike unless you have the raffle tag imo
If a unit isn't a true spike unit a branched antler bull can be harvested one side needs to be a spike unless you have the raffle tag imo
Some first poster may know a little more than you think. Just seeing what everybody else "knew" is all. No muddy water
334 isnt a true spike unit.
Some first poster may know a little more than you think. Just seeing what everybody else "knew" is all. No muddy water
Then welcome to Hunting Washington, we would love to hear what you know!
As far as I can see it still boils down to what question was asked on his call to WDFW and what their answer was.
Whether or not he knew what the answer was before he asked the question is impossible to know, but if you can't go to WDFW for clarification who can you go to?
As far as I can see it still boils down to what question was asked on his call to WDFW and what their answer was.
Whether or not he knew what the answer was before he asked the question is impossible to know, but if you can't go to WDFW for clarification who can you go to?
The state published regulations like everyone else.
As far as I can see it still boils down to what question was asked on his call to WDFW and what their answer was.
Whether or not he knew what the answer was before he asked the question is impossible to know, but if you can't go to WDFW for clarification who can you go to?
The state published regulations like everyone else.
I shared the story in an earlier post about asking WDFW about a few of the restriction on legal bows for hunting that I didnt think I fully inderstood before I purchased one . Am I in the same boat as Reichert then?
Assuming he asked if shooting the bull was legal.
As far as I can see it still boils down to what question was asked on his call to WDFW and what their answer was.
Whether or not he knew what the answer was before he asked the question is impossible to know, but if you can't go to WDFW for clarification who can you go to?
The state published regulations like everyone else.
So 334 is pen to branch bulls?As far as I can see it still boils down to what question was asked on his call to WDFW and what their answer was.
Whether or not he knew what the answer was before he asked the question is impossible to know, but if you can't go to WDFW for clarification who can you go to?
The state published regulations like everyone else.
Again, at the risk of repeating myself: We are not talking about an intern, we now know that we are talking about Morgan Grant, and his supervisor Rich Mann.
Let me go out on a limb, knowing Rich Mann and knowing Morgan Grant's rep, any question was answered thus - what do the Game Regs say? So you have just answered your own question.
If a legally defined "spike" with a legal second point or seventy points on the second antler is a "spike' In GMU 334 then it means that the area is still "not open for branched antler bull elk." It is open only for elk that can legally be defined as a spike.
If the same elk were in a different GMU then he is branched antlered and that is not so hard to figure out that any of my ten-year old hunter-ed students could miss that question. An elk can be legal in a spike only area and also legal in a branched antler area with two steps.
The thing that matters is that a "spike" is a legal spike and defined as ONLY being a "spike" in GMU 334 irrespective of whether an adjacent unit would recognize that very same elk as a legal branched antler bull.
Is there any case history where an internet forum owner was successfully sued for unsubstantiated statements posted by a forum member?
This isn't Gawker, and these posts are child's play compared to anything you'd see on YouTube, Twitter, or hell even the foxnews comments section.
This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.
Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months later it turns out there's some question whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"
Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"
Ok. Subtitute buck with bull. Make sense yet? Thought maybe that line could be read between. My bad, Internet after all . Lowest common denominator must be factoredI guess what he was trying to say is stop speaking in riddles.
back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.
back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.
He killed a branched antler bull in unit 334.
back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.
He killed a branched antler bull in unit 334.
Is there a reason this unit does not allow big bull harvest? Just to give the elk a place to get domesticated? Caught in fences, euthanized and wasted? To create controversy and "grey areas" to possibly be exploited? Is this effective management? Are they (WDFW ) not taking opportunity from all hunters by facilitating a "safe" zone for these bulls in an agriculture conflict area?
back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.
He killed a branched antler bull in unit 334.
As before, I'm not defending, supporting or condoning Mr Reichert s actions just peering into all scenarios.
So, it's known that someone called and spoke with a well known, ethical and knowledgeable employee under the supervision of another such employee.
It's been identified that neither of them were legally able to authorize such a "hunt", but allegedly did. It wouldn't be the first time or last where someone without legal authority authorized an action they weren't authorized to do so.
How many times have people been let out with warnings? Was there a law created or passed that gave authority to the enforcement side to give warnings when people break the law and the law says otherwise?
Just saying. :dunno:
The topic is about Reichert, not you, and my post is in reference to the owner of the site and his stated concern over threatened legal action toward the site due to comments made in this topic and the previous.Is there any case history where an internet forum owner was successfully sued for unsubstantiated statements posted by a forum member?
This isn't Gawker, and these posts are child's play compared to anything you'd see on YouTube, Twitter, or hell even the foxnews comments section.
I'm the focus of the threats and I am confident I have libeled no one. Let the chips fall where they may.
This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.
Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months later it turns out there's some question whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"
Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"
This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.If you had an archery tag. Yep you'd be in trouble because your tag isn't valid.
Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months later it turns out there's some question whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"
Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"
This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.
Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months later it turns out there's some question whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"
Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"
Ranger/Bullwinkle didn't "pop out of the woods" either.
Shouldn't be any different. Not open to branch antler bulls so don't go there looking for branch antler Bulls.
He should be prosecuted the same if was a raghorn or a trophy .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you telling me you are an absolute random new hunter who found hunt wa? Hahahahahaha as they say on espn, come-on, maaaaan!
back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.
He killed a branched antler bull in unit 334.
Was he told he could by the governing body of wildlife for the state of Washington? If so should he be punished for having the audacity to ask and get the answer of yes? Maybe so maybe not. Just doesn't seem so black and white
back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.
He killed a branched antler bull in unit 334.
Was he told he could by the governing body of wildlife for the state of Washington? If so should he be punished for having the audacity to ask and get the answer of yes? Maybe so maybe not. Just doesn't seem so black and white
back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.
He killed a branched antler bull in unit 334.
Was he told he could by the governing body of wildlife for the state of Washington? If so should he be punished for having the audacity to ask and get the answer of yes? Maybe so maybe not. Just doesn't seem so black and white
Yup just a new guy. Still haven't seen this responded to yet.
Is there a reason this unit does not allow big bull harvest? Just to give the elk a place to get domesticated? Caught in fences, euthanized and wasted? To create controversy and "grey areas" to possibly be exploited? Is this effective management? Are they (WDFW ) not taking opportunity from all hunters by facilitating a "safe" zone for these bulls in an agriculture conflict area?
My quiet ion still stands. Of his every one on this web site knows unequivocally of this mans guilt. Guilty until proven innocent huh? Lots of " patriots" on here forget the system were built on once they see so thing that pisses them off.
My quiet ion still stands. Of his every one on this web site knows unequivocally of this mans guilt. Guilty until proven innocent huh? Lots of " patriots" on here forget the system were built on once they see so thing that pisses them off.
My quiet ion still stands. Of his every one on this web site knows unequivocally of this mans guilt. Guilty until proven innocent huh? Lots of " patriots" on here forget the system were built on once they see so thing that pisses them off.
You claim to have knowledge of the hunt . So straight forward yes or no. Was the bull shot in gmu 334?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No such thing as exonerating circumstances phool?
Shouldn't be any different. Not open to branch antler bulls so don't go there looking for branch antler Bulls.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
He should be prosecuted the same if was a raghorn or a trophy .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No such thing as exonerating circumstances phool?
You asked for evidence of guilt, of this there is no question, he killed a branched antler bull in unit 334........period, can't spin that!
As I said, everything else is up to the courts.
My quiestion still stands. Of how does every one on this web site knows unequivocally of this mans guilt. Guilty until proven innocent huh? Lots of " patriots" on here forget the system were built on once they see somthing that pisses them off.
I'm waiting patiently for his reply. Shouldn't take that long to type one word.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would you agree that there still might be exonerating circumstances, or are you so sure that there can't even be the possibility?
I just don't see how anyone who wasn't directly involved can be so certain.
I also can't understand why I keep coming back to this thread for a re-re-re-re-rehashing.
:yike:
This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.
Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months later it turns out there's some question whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"
Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"
Ranger/Bullwinkle didn't "pop out of the woods" either.
Does that really matter?
Jd will be in western state and more than likely on suicide watch, when this horrendous "poaching" case gets dismissed...
JD, if the charges are dropped (if) are you going to file an appeal?
This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.
Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months later it turns out there's some question whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"
Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"
Ranger/Bullwinkle didn't "pop out of the woods" either.
Does that really matter?
Indeed. This shoot was planned ahead of time. There were locals involved who surely knew the laws for the specific GMU. It was not a surprise to them that killing big bulls in the GMU they were hunting in was not legal.
This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.
Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months later it turns out there's some question whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"
Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"
Ranger/Bullwinkle didn't "pop out of the woods" either.
Does that really matter?
Indeed. This shoot was planned ahead of time. There were locals involved who surely knew the laws for the specific GMU. It was not a surprise to them that killing big bulls in the GMU they were hunting in was not legal.
No the locals were not sure about the rules for that tag. That is why the call was made to ask. You 206er's will not listen to the truth because it's not what you want to hear. Now go ahead and carry on with your false statements..........
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
Or should that be part of the narritive? The pro got it wrong too. Who should be held to the higher standard ? The hunter did ask after all. No such thing as a stupid question but there are stupid answers
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
How do ASSUMPTIONS hold up in court? Or do you personally know the locals involved and have received their confessions.This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.
Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months later it turns out there's some question whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"
Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"
Ranger/Bullwinkle didn't "pop out of the woods" either.
Does that really matter?
Indeed. This shoot was planned ahead of time. There were locals involved who surely knew the laws for the specific GMU. It was not a surprise to them that killing big bulls in the GMU they were hunting in was not legal.
I do find many rules "unclear" and fyi so did Mick Cope. More assumptions.I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
Do you find the rule unclear?
What is unclear to me is what transpired in the supposed phone call(s).
Was there a 'grassy knoll' near the hunt location? :chuckle:
Your telling me there were 2 phone calls! But everybody here "knew" there was 1! How could it be? Just like they know he's guilty I guess
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
Do you find the rule unclear?
What is unclear to me is what transpired in the supposed phone call(s).
Was there a 'grassy knoll' near the hunt location? :chuckle:
Your telling me there were 2 phone calls! But everybody here "knew" there was 1! How could it be? Just like they know he's guilty I guess
The few urban cowboys on here that have been going on and on abut this on here have no clue about the details. And don't seem to have any problem coming up with lies to support thier witchhunt.
I think I have read many assumptions and very few lies. Some new members have joined with broad proclamations on clearing things up but have not done so.
Your telling me there were 2 phone calls! But everybody here "knew" there was 1! How could it be? Just like they know he's guilty I guess
The few urban cowboys on here that have been going on and on abut this on here have no clue about the details. And don't seem to have any problem coming up with lies to support thier witchhunt.
I think it may be time for one of my all time favorite sayings
The truth is like poetry, and everybody f*n hates poetry :hello:
This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.
Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months later it turns out there's some question whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"
Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"
Ranger/Bullwinkle didn't "pop out of the woods" either.
Does that really matter?
Indeed. This shoot was planned ahead of time. There were locals involved who surely knew the laws for the specific GMU. It was not a surprise to them that killing big bulls in the GMU they were hunting in was not legal.
No the locals were not sure about the rules for that tag. That is why the call was made to ask. You 206er's will not listen to the truth because it's not what you want to hear. Now go ahead and carry on with your false statements..........
I think I have read many assumptions and very few lies. Some new members have joined with broad proclamations on clearing things up but have not done so.
I gave you the name of the person at WDFW who said it was legal. For most rational people that would clear things up. Your twin brother Hasty has said over and over again that other neighbors told the group to stop asking about that bull on their property. That is a flat out lie.
Your telling me there were 2 phone calls! But everybody here "knew" there was 1! How could it be? Just like they know he's guilty I guess
The few urban cowboys on here that have been going on and on abut this on here have no clue about the details. And don't seem to have any problem coming up with lies to support thier witchhunt.
I think it may be time for one of my all time favorite sayings
The truth is like poetry, and everybody f*n hates poetry :hello:
And right here we have an excellent example of your blatant disregard for the rules. You read the rules when you signed up for an account here, and if there was any clarification needed the site owner has ask the rules be followed and he has repeatedly stated that contractions or substitutions of symbols for letters in profanity are rule breaking.
This just illustrates that your ilk does not regard rules as parameters that are to be respected, you see them as something to get around and in the case of poaching this elk you guys were too clever by half.
Your telling me there were 2 phone calls! But everybody here "knew" there was 1! How could it be? Just like they know he's guilty I guess
The few urban cowboys on here that have been going on and on abut this on here have no clue about the details. And don't seem to have any problem coming up with lies to support thier witchhunt.
I think it may be time for one of my all time favorite sayings
The truth is like poetry, and everybody f*n hates poetry :hello:
And right here we have an excellent example of your blatant disregard for the rules. You read the rules when you signed up for an account here, and if there was any clarification needed the site owner has ask the rules be followed and he has repeatedly stated that contractions or substitutions of symbols for letters in profanity are rule breaking.
This just illustrates that your ilk does not regard rules as parameters that are to be respected, you see them as something to get around and in the case of poaching this elk you guys were too clever by half.
Take a breath, I sent the mod an apology when I saw he edited it. But for all you know I meant freakin and your minds just in the gutter. Didn't mean to wind ya up there was trying to lighten the mood. Sorry I offended you or anybody else
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
Your post was a direct attack on another member. You last post was unnecessary .
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?
Funny thing about the Internet is you never really know who your talking too. Could be he's making no assumptions at all and was part of that conversation. Could be...
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?
Funny thing about the Internet is you never really know who your talking too. Could be he's making no assumptions at all and was part of that conversation. Could be...
That is why I made that statement. I guess I should have put a question mark at the end of the first sentence though. I would like to see his reply to my question.
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?
Funny thing about the Internet is you never really know who your talking too. Could be he's making no assumptions at all and was part of that conversation. Could be...
That is why I made that statement. I guess I should have put a question mark at the end of the first sentence though. I would like to see his reply to my question.
All I will say is what I said is 100% factual and no assumptions were made.
I've gotten a couple messages regarding the prosecutors role in this case, which in reality is now the case for all criminal cases.
Prior to 2012 an officer could role up on a natural resource crime (say a poaching) and in 95% of the cases hand a guy a criminal citation with a fine on it and drive away. At that point the individual was charged with the crime(s) on the ticket, he could either pay up or go to court. At that time natural resource crimes were the only criminal offenses that could be handled via a ticket bail forfeiture (fine). For all other crimes (drugs, alcohol, driving, etc) you had to go to court.
Starting in 2012 ALL criminal offenses had to have a mandatory court date. Starting in the early to mid 2000s as courts really started to get backlogged you had a lot of prosecutor offices telling officers to not issue criminal citations with mandatory court dates because is if an officer hands you a criminal citation with a mandatory court date you must have your first appearance within 15 days. In comparison if the officer doesn't give you a citation but rather sends a report to the prosecutor the prosecutor has 1 year to file misdemeanor charges and 2 years to file gross misdemeanor charges. This also helps with the scheduling of court dockets. Court dockets were always packed after summer holiday weekends because people had to appear within 15 days.
What this also means now is that someone in the prosecutors office is reviewing every single case that gets charged, no more Officer Smith cited a guy with a natural resource misdemeanor and it's a shaky/iffy case so lets see if he just pays it. Those iffy cases aren't being prosecuted anymore (in most cases) because you now have to have prosecutor support for everything. So in reality if you are charged in WA now with a criminal offense (anything other than an infraction/ticket) the officer has essentially shown the prosecutor that it's a good case and the prosecutor is agreeing to charge.
Some of the smaller prosecutor offices (fewer every year) in WA are still operating under the old system of letting officers hand people criminal citations which means they must appear in 15 days, but the majority are operating under the system of contact the violator and send the prosecutor the report and wait and see if they charge.
On multiple occasions there were phone calls made to these officials. The same ones you said gave out the permission. asking if the case was going to the prosecutors office. End response " we are interviewing a few more people that will make the case rock solid."
I guess the answer on the other end of the line shoulda been a pretty simple no then huh? I mean if some dumb red neck locals must know then surely a professional at f&g must
truth hurts sometimes. You keep referring to this as a witch hunt. Not the case my friend. I'm going to beat a dead horse. South central raffle open in any 300-500 GMu except those units that aren't open the branched antler elk hunting. Not hard to comprehend.On multiple occasions there were phone calls made to these officials. The same ones you said gave out the permission. asking if the case was going to the prosecutors office. End response " we are interviewing a few more people that will make the case rock solid."
Ya, ok :ok
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?
Funny thing about the Internet is you never really know who your talking too. Could be he's making no assumptions at all and was part of that conversation. Could be...
That is why I made that statement. I guess I should have put a question mark at the end of the first sentence though. I would like to see his reply to my question.
All I will say is what I said is 100% factual and no assumptions were made.
For you to be able to make that statement you would have to have been able to, at the very least heard both sides of the conversations of the phone call(s)? Otherwise its just an assumption. So apparently you were directly involved in this whole thing in some way. Or heard recordings of the phone call(s) after the fact.
I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!
If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.
So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?
Funny thing about the Internet is you never really know who your talking too. Could be he's making no assumptions at all and was part of that conversation. Could be...
That is why I made that statement. I guess I should have put a question mark at the end of the first sentence though. I would like to see his reply to my question.
All I will say is what I said is 100% factual and no assumptions were made.
For you to be able to make that statement you would have to have been able to, at the very least heard both sides of the conversations of the phone call(s)? Otherwise its just an assumption. So apparently you were directly involved in this whole thing in some way. Or heard recordings of the phone call(s) after the fact.
Must have been an assumption. But its worth a try to pass it off as factual!
lord grizzly & kiticaashunter,
Please enlighten us on the context of these supposed phone call(s)
Early on in this thread it was stated that a call was made to WDFW, then a call was received back from WDFW
Now it is sounding like 2 calls were made to WDFW :dunno:
Were there more than 2 calls made ????
I'm wondering why the case is even being prosecuted if wdfw gave permission. Why would they even investigate? Is it simply because wdfw really had no legal authority?
I'm wondering why the case is even being prosecuted if wdfw gave permission. Why would they even investigate? Is it simply because wdfw really had no legal authority? Sure would be nice to know the exact wording of the questions and conversation with wdfw. Too bad there isn't anyone in the know responding to this thread to put and end to the speculation. ..........
I'm wondering why the case is even being prosecuted if wdfw gave permission. Why would they even investigate? Is it simply because wdfw really had no legal authority? Sure would be nice to know the exact wording of the questions and conversation with wdfw. Too bad there isn't anyone in the know responding to this thread to put and end to the speculation. ..........
I think the last thing the WDFW wanted was for this case to get prosecuted. That was a decision made by the county due to outside pressure they were receiving i believe . As far a the WDFW investigation, to the best of my knowledge not a single person in the party was even interviewed. That seems really strange to me if there truly was a investigation done.
On multiple occasions there were phone calls made to these officials. The same ones you said gave out the permission. asking if the case was going to the prosecutors office. End response " we are interviewing a few more people that will make the case rock solid."I would hate to see a "case building" due to pressure end up with an officer getting Brady'd. Just sayin'.
interesting. So was that bull described as a branch antler bull in the questions asked of WDFW during the phone calls?lord grizzly & kiticaashunter,
Please enlighten us on the context of these supposed phone call(s)
Early on in this thread it was stated that a call was made to WDFW, then a call was received back from WDFW
Now it is sounding like 2 calls were made to WDFW :dunno:
Were there more than 2 calls made ????
It has been talked about on here before. A call was made to the regional office asking about the legality of shooting that bull in that unit with that tag. The officer told them he was going to check with Olympia. 14 minutes later on the second call they were told they would need to use a bow or muzzleloader to harvest that bull under the circumstances.
It's not just now sounding like two calls happened, this is what actually happened. Many on here talk about "a call", these are the people that don't the facts of the situation and have wildly speculated about what was discussed.
Where does it say 334 is closed? I would still say that if it is not true spike, it could be argued that there is branch bull hunting. It would be tough to convict (for me) given all the circumstances.
lord grizzly & kiticaashunter,
Please enlighten us on the context of these supposed phone call(s)
Early on in this thread it was stated that a call was made to WDFW, then a call was received back from WDFW
Now it is sounding like 2 calls were made to WDFW :dunno:
Were there more than 2 calls made ????
It has been talked about on here before. A call was made to the regional office asking about the legality of shooting that bull in that unit with that tag. The officer told them he was going to check with Olympia. 14 minutes later on the second call they were told they would need to use a bow or muzzleloader to harvest that bull under the circumstances.
It's not just now sounding like two calls happened, this is what actually happened. Many on here talk about "a call", these are the people that don't the facts of the situation and have wildly speculated about what was discussed.
So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)No
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
Thats not a branched bull? I would love to see a jury of six come to agreement on your answers.So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
No
Yes
No
The department has some more than confusing management schemes that shape the regulations. WDFW gets what they asked for, a PR nightmare and a bunch of wasted public funds. I would guess the money spent, from investigation to prosecution nullifies any proceeds from the raffle.So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)No
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
Yes
No
How is this relevant ? Pretty sure the bull this thread is about had forks above the ears on both sides.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)No
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
Yes
No
How is this relevant ? Pretty sure the bull this thread is about had forks above the ears on both sides.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The department has some more than confusing management schemes that shape the regulations. WDFW gets what they asked for, a PR nightmare and a bunch of wasted public funds. I would guess the money spent, from investigation to prosecution nullifies any proceeds from the raffle.So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)No
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
Yes
No
How is this relevant ? Pretty sure the bull this thread is about had forks above the ears on both sides.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thats not a branched bull? I would love to see a jury of six come to agreement on your answers.So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
No
Yes
No
What is WDFW's definition of a spike bull and what is their definition of a branch antlered bull? By definition, I'm pretty sure that bull in the picture is a spike.Jackalope, it's definitely a fine print and interpretation argument. That does not take away from it's validity.
Thats not a branched bull? I would love to see a jury of six come to agreement on your answers.So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
No
Yes
No
If you killed that bull in 334 you going to call it a 5 by 2 or a spike by 5 . By definition its a legal spike. Calling it a branched antler bull for the sake of trying to justify hunting branched bulls in 334 is just trying to twist the wording in the regs to suit the hunting needs of one individual.
This thread has reached the level of a bad case of gonorrhea, with a side case of herpes.
This thread has reached the level of a bad case of gonorrhea, with a side case of herpes.JLS maybe you can provide clarity? How do you quantify your analysis?
its not hard to figure out at all. We all abide by the same rules if not we face the penalty of the law. Ignorance is bliss.Thats not a branched bull? I would love to see a jury of six come to agreement on your answers.So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
No
Yes
No
If you killed that bull in 334 you going to call it a 5 by 2 or a spike by 5 . By definition its a legal spike. Calling it a branched antler bull for the sake of trying to justify hunting branched bulls in 334 is just trying to twist the wording in the regs to suit the hunting needs of one individual.
You may have just explained it the best on how unclear the regs and peramiters of the raffle tag are. The way there written could not even been interpreted by the department that wrote them, thus the situation we have here. Just as clear as mud
Thats not a branched bull? I would love to see a jury of six come to agreement on your answers.So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
No
Yes
No
If you killed that bull in 334 you going to call it a 5 by 2 or a spike by 5 . By definition its a legal spike. Calling it a branched antler bull for the sake of trying to justify hunting branched bulls in 334 is just trying to twist the wording in the regs to suit the hunting needs of one individual.
This thread has reached the level of a bad case of gonorrhea, with a side case of herpes.JLS maybe you can provide clarity? How do you quantify your analysis?
I was hoping you could provide legal clarity (rcw, wac,case law).
trying to justify hunting branched bulls in 334 is just trying to twist the wording in the regs to suit the hunting needs of one individual.Thats not a branched bull? I would love to see a jury of six come to agreement on your answers.So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
No
Yes
No
What is WDFW's definition of a spike bull and what is their definition of a branch antlered bull? By definition, I'm pretty sure that bull in the picture is a spike.Jackalope, it's definitely a fine print and interpretation argument. That does not take away from it's validity.
That Bull in the picture is also legal in a 3PT or better area, like GMU 652. So, I would call it a branch antlered Bull and not a spike.
Something that would definitively say that 334 would not be a huntable unit to auction/raffle tag holders.
So they should be pursuing charges on every non true spike taken in archery and muzzy.
NO According to WDFW and the regs it is a spike. Refer to page 49 in regs if you don't understand and are confused of the difference. Theirs some really cool pics to look at as well.
True Spike Bull Restrictions: Bull elk taken in
these units (GMUs 251, 328-335) must
have both antlers with no branching
originating more than four inches above
where the antlers attach to the skull
Riechert's Bull clearly has branching on both antlers that are more than 4 inches above his skull.
NO It is illegal to shoot a 1x5 in 334 with any weapon and all seasons except with a bow during Sept. archery season.
NO AGAIN!!! Again, you can shoot that 1x5 spike with a bow during Sept. archery season but if you shoot a 2x2 or larger with any weapon or any tag it becomes illegal as it would clearly become a branched bull by looking at or reading the regs.
334 is TRUE SPIKE ONLY (meaning 1x1) EXCEPT SEPT ARCHERY where you can legally shoot a 1x?
I can't find anywhere in the regs where it is legal to shoot a branched bull (meaning 2x2 or larger) in Unit 334. If I am missing something, PLEASE show me! To me the regs are not confusing at all on this subject.
TBar- In your eyes is unit 334 True Spike or not? In your eyes can you legally shoot that 1x5 in 334 with a muzzy or rifle?
Don't forget guys if your not clear on any regulations you can always call fish and game and ask....oh wait ....:chuckle:
Something that would definitively say that 334 would not be a huntable unit to auction/raffle tag holders. I just don't think it's as cut and dry (illegal) as many (not you) are claiming. I apologize if the spike pic has zero meaning to this thread. Mods feel free to delete.
Pretty simple
Jackalope, in the 2015 Game Regs it is listed on P51 a Spike or antlerless for the Archery General
If 334 were open for branch bulls, is there anyone that believes that bull would have been alive for the raffle tag holder to take?
If 334 were open for branch bulls, is there anyone that believes that bull would have been alive for the raffle tag holder to take?I made that point like 500 posts ago but it seems like everyone missed it. If 334 was open to branched antler bulls that thing would of been dead along time ago
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
More like beating a dead elk story to death...........................no wonder I don't frequent this site very often any more..you guys are worse than a bunch of old women.
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
More like beating a dead elk story to death...........................no wonder I don't frequent this site very often any more..you guys are worse than a bunch of old women.
Nice Camp I was wondering just how much timber would need to be cut to prop up this dead horse.
Lions, bison, elk & gorillas oh my... :chuckle: all these pets killed in the last year is a damn shame. :bdid: people need to learn to put a leash and a fence around them for their own safety. :chuckle:
There never was a WDFG. You had the Dept of Fisheries and a Dept of Wildlife. in 1994 they merged to create WDFW. The Dept of Game was pre Dept of Wildlife.Don't forget guys if your not clear on any regulations you can always call fish and game and ask....oh wait ....:chuckle:
Sadly this is true in more ways than one, WDFG was reliable as I remember it, WDFW not so much!
There never was a WDFG. You had the Dept of Fisheries and a Dept of Wildlife. in 1994 they merged to create WDFW. The Dept of Game was pre Dept of Wildlife.Don't forget guys if your not clear on any regulations you can always call fish and game and ask....oh wait ....:chuckle:
Sadly this is true in more ways than one, WDFG was reliable as I remember it, WDFW not so much!
More like beating a dead elk story to death...........................no wonder I don't frequent this site very often any more..you guys are worse than a bunch of old women.Oh come on now somethings got to fill the pre-draw void on here :chuckle:
More like beating a dead elk story to death...........................no wonder I don't frequent this site very often any more..you guys are worse than a bunch of old women.Oh come on now somethings got to fill the pre-draw void on here :chuckle:
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
More like beating a dead elk story to death...........................no wonder I don't frequent this site very often any more..you guys are worse than a bunch of old women.
Nice Camp I was wondering just how much timber would need to be cut to prop up this dead horse.
,
Thanks. It's 110 % out of my realm of thinking, why anybody with normal thinking, would carry on about something like this. Gorillas are the new fad now anyhow.
So, was this bull shot above the canal?Yep, in 334. :chuckle:
Wait, did he get a sheep? I forgot about that being apart of the raffle until someone posted the pics of the regs yesterday or day before.
Wait, did he get a sheep? I forgot about that being apart of the raffle until someone posted the pics of the regs yesterday or day before.
Anybody got pics of the ram and general area (unit)?
lord grizzly & kiticaashunter,
Please enlighten us on the context of these supposed phone call(s)
Early on in this thread it was stated that a call was made to WDFW, then a call was received back from WDFW
Now it is sounding like 2 calls were made to WDFW :dunno:
Were there more than 2 calls made ????
It has been talked about on here before. A call was made to the regional office asking about the legality of shooting that bull in that unit with that tag. The officer told them he was going to check with Olympia. 14 minutes later on the second call they were told they would need to use a bow or muzzleloader to harvest that bull under the circumstances.
It's not just now sounding like two calls happened, this is what actually happened. Many on here talk about "a call", these are the people that don't the facts of the situation and have wildly speculated about what was discussed.
1. The ? I was asking was the directions (incoming vs outgoing) of the 2 calls.
2. As far as the phone calls....I don't really care WHAT was discussed, TR knew he could not shoot that bull, to even make that 1st call reeks of a poor attempt to twist the rules in his favor...very un-sportsman like, and definitely not the actions of a person who calls himself a "hunter" (To me, He is just a killer)
3. This right here in bold, from you kiticaashunter, has convinced me 100% that Mr. Reichert and/or his crew are 100% guilty of;
a. Knowing they could not shoot this animal in 334, thus the call. That is SAD!!! For a guy who hashunted/shot many animals in his lifetime, and calls himself a hunter/sportsman. I agree with JDHasty, HOW COULD YOU CALL YOURSELF A HUNTER and expect this scenario to EVER end well?
b. Being the stereotypical wealthy big game shooter, "Money will buy me everything, and in the end whether right or wrong, ethical or not, fair chase or not, I (___________________) will have the animal that I WANTED hanging on my wall"
c. Zero respect from TRUE sportsman who actually hunt
I personally would rather be remembered for being a good guy, not one who twisted things around to get his way, those are the actions of a spoiled child, not a grown man who is supposed to be a sportsman. :twocents: :twocents:
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?
How can someone be expected to know all the rules when the regs are wrong?
It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.
Was that really a serious question?
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?Of course he should. There is even a warning on the page.
interesting. So was that bull described as a branch antler bull in the questions asked of WDFW during the phone calls?lord grizzly & kiticaashunter,
Please enlighten us on the context of these supposed phone call(s)
Early on in this thread it was stated that a call was made to WDFW, then a call was received back from WDFW
Now it is sounding like 2 calls were made to WDFW :dunno:
Were there more than 2 calls made ????
It has been talked about on here before. A call was made to the regional office asking about the legality of shooting that bull in that unit with that tag. The officer told them he was going to check with Olympia. 14 minutes later on the second call they were told they would need to use a bow or muzzleloader to harvest that bull under the circumstances.
It's not just now sounding like two calls happened, this is what actually happened. Many on here talk about "a call", these are the people that don't the facts of the situation and have wildly speculated about what was discussed.
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?There are modern firearms that are not excluded in firearms restricted areas. A few of them allow shotguns and revolvers which are legal to hunt game with. A 12 gauge slug is pretty effective, modern and legal.
Or they can just change the rules to fit their management schemes as they go. Without following process I might add.In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?Of course he should. There is even a warning on the page.
Perhaps WDFW should so away with the printed regulations altogether, since no one bothers to read them anymore.
Anybody got pics of the ram and general area (unit)?
Anybody got pics of the ram and general area (unit)?
Quilomene ram?
334 ram. Below the canal. Han fed.
At least that's what I read on the internet.
334 ram. Below the canal. Han fed.
At least that's what I read on the internet.
Called first to get permission ??
That is a pretty good list of slanderous assumptions. You made those statements like you know the facts when in fact you don't have a clue. Pretty low class to be making statements like these about someone when you don't know the truth.
That is a pretty good list of slanderous assumptions. You made those statements like you know the facts when in fact you don't have a clue. Pretty low class to be making statements like these about someone when you don't know the truth.
Here is a FACT for you Kiti.......You do not know me. Therefore, you have no idea of WHAT I know. Guess it's OK for you to be slanderous though :dunno: I may be low class(I prefer the term redneck :chuckle:), but I do hunt legally. FYI
PS, I will no longer play your game.
Anybody got pics of the ram and general area (unit)?
Anybody got pics of the ram and general area (unit)?
That's a baby ram, and I think it still has milk on its lips! :lol4:
Some big great white hunter must have killed that baby ram. :chuckle:
But sheep are so easy.
Wow. The guy hasn't been convicted of anything related to the subject elk, but people feel the need to take snide shots at his ram.:yeah: come on guys there is nothing wrong with that ram. It was taken within the peramiters of the tag he had! Really low blow. :twocents:
Not HW's finest hour.
The ram was a legal ram taken in a legal unit and he had a tag for it.
That's a baby ram, and I think it still has milk on its lips! :lol4:yea but this is some funny stuff :chuckle:
:chuckle:
:yeah:Anybody got pics of the ram and general area (unit)?
That's a baby ram, and I think it still has milk on its lips! :lol4:
Some big great white hunter must have killed that baby ram. :chuckle:
A trophy is in the eye of the beholder yes?
Perhaps the hunt was more about the experience and time spent with family/friends. :dunno:
I agree it's not a "big" or "high scoring" ram, but I've seen similar class elk, whitetail, blacktail and mule deer displayed as proudly by several members of this site, hailed as trophies with almost 100% agreement, simply because of the circumstances.
I agree dale, if it was a everyday average joe that killed that bull, it wouldn't of even rated a speed bump on hunt wa.....Especially not the mega thread this has turned into though. I didn't even click on the earlier thread that evolved into this one until Cboom kept bringing it up a few times a day...now just here for the entertainment value.
So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
Show me a rcw that differentiates and clearly defines spike (not true spike) units as off limits to raffle/auction tags.So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions. (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?
The questions should be:
Is this bull a legal elk in a three point or branched antler elk minimum GMU? The answer is yes.
Is this bull a legal spike in a spike only GMU such as GMU 334? The answer is yes.
Is GMU 334 ever open for any bull that cannot be legally defined as a spike? The answer is no.
Was Tod Reichert hunting in GMU 334? Yes
Could Todd Reichert legally hunt with that tag in an area that is only open for elk that can be legally defined as antlerless elk or spike elk? The answer is no - because the area was not open in 2015 to hunting any elk that can not be legally defined as a spike in that particular unit.
The bottom line is that that particular tag is not valid in a GMU that is not open to branched antler elk hunting period. That tag is/was no more valid in GMU 334 than it would have been valid in Lewis County. It has nothing to do with which elk he shot, it has everything to do with him killing an elk, any elk, in an area that was not open under the tag he held.
One person made a snide remark about the sheep - then a bunch of folks pointed out that was uncalled for citing the hunt was legal, trophys are in the hunters mind etc.
A lot of the folks who have provided the most insight into this case were the first to call out the snide remark regarding the sheep :dunno:
Sorry - I just don't see it as people jealously picking on Reichert. All of the negative press and attention Reichert has received are almost entirely the result of his own actions. :twocents:
Sorry, the TR fanboys are grasping at straws here. It seems they want to insulate him because he is rich and can afford these tags. The snide remarks about the ram are uncalled for and unsportsmanlike. But the jealousy train is so wore out its pathetic. Whether Reichert is found guilty of illegal harvest or not, the decision he made to take this bull comes with consequences. From everything said here and from both sides, he made the decision to tag this bull regardless of the consequences because "he doesn't really care what people think". Cool. Good for him. One of the consequences is a unknown amount of speculation and bashing on public forums.For the record I'm not a TR fanboy. These tags have created controversy for 20 years. I don't even agree with some of the ideology that goes along with them. If anyone is grasping at straws it is the department and it is reaping what it sows.
If I had rolled up popped the bull and loaded him up in my truck. I would fully expect the same treatment in the huntwa court. Probably much worse because I would have been tagless, and trespassing along with hunting in a closed unit. The argument that all the publicity is because he is high profile is just dumb. The bull was high profile. Don't take that away from him.
Speaking for myself...
I see a lot of hatred of the fact that the guy has been successful in life.
(These comments are my personal opinion, Hunting-Washington is an internet service provider and has taken no official position on this issue.)
That wont work camp, their too busy running the Forest Circus. :chuckle:
Speaking for myself...
I see a lot of hatred of the fact that the guy has been successful in life. This is America, we all have a choice in what direction we take with our lives and we all have the option of doing what it takes to make a better living so we can afford to buy these tags. The irony that nobody considers is that the money from these special tags helps fund wildlife management and ultimately keeps the price lower for everyone else to hunt cheaper. :dunno:
FACT, many comments involve: his wealth; that he got a big bull most thought was off-limits; or that it was easy to shoot the bull, he didn't have to hike 20 miles and summit a dozen mountains to kill it. We all have different reasons why we hunt and we all have different methods how we hunt, but none of that should be a part of this conversation, ethics is a different conversation.
It sounds like he had landowner permission and WDFW permission to shoot the bull, unless that is proven false in court it may be pretty hard to convict him of breaking the law. The question is did he violate the law or not, in my opinion we should let the court figure out the truth!
(These comments are my personal opinion, Hunting-Washington is an internet service provider and has taken no official position on this issue.)
(These comments are my personal opinion, Hunting-Washington is an internet service provider and has taken no official position on this issue.)
Speaking for myself...
I see a lot of hatred of the fact that the guy has been successful in life. This is America, we all have a choice in what direction we take with our lives and we all have the option of doing what it takes to make a better living so we can afford to buy these tags. The irony that nobody considers is that the money from these special tags helps fund wildlife management and ultimately keeps the price lower for everyone else to hunt cheaper. :dunno:
FACT, many comments involve: his wealth; that he got a big bull most thought was off-limits; or that it was easy to shoot the bull, he didn't have to hike 20 miles and summit a dozen mountains to kill it. We all have different reasons why we hunt and we all have different methods how we hunt, but none of that should be a part of this conversation, ethics is a different conversation.
It sounds like he had landowner permission and WDFW permission to shoot the bull, unless that is proven false in court it may be pretty hard to convict him of breaking the law. The question is did he violate the law or not, in my opinion we should let the court figure out the truth!
(These comments are my personal opinion, Hunting-Washington is an internet service provider and has taken no official position on this issue.)
Do the best you can and they are so confusing your bound to error into an issue you didn't realize. Lots of archers don't have the proper arrow for their bow under the law.
So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting... :rolleyes:
Tod riechert fan club!! Lmfao
Sorry, the TR fanboys are grasping at straws here. It seems they want to insulate him because he is rich and can afford these tags. The snide remarks about the ram are uncalled for and unsportsmanlike. But the jealousy train is so wore out its pathetic. Whether Reichert is found guilty of illegal harvest or not, the decision he made to take this bull comes with consequences. From everything said here and from both sides, he made the decision to tag this bull regardless of the consequences because "he doesn't really care what people think". Cool. Good for him. One of the consequences is a unknown amount of speculation and bashing on public forums.
If I had rolled up popped the bull and loaded him up in my truck. I would fully expect the same treatment in the huntwa court. Probably much worse because I would have been tagless, and trespassing along with hunting in a closed unit. The argument that all the publicity is because he is high profile is just dumb. The bull was high profile. Don't take that away from him.
Tod riechert fan club!! Lmfao
the hater club is even funnier
i would love to see the Wdfw get counter sued and absolutely screwed. I am talking class action screwed. I don't know all the facts but if someone with obsential authority green lighted a hunt and now someone is having their personal reputation ruined as a result. Now the same department decided to press charges. Things could and should get real expensive for the Wdfw.
Also hunters need to unite and not fight. a hunter who spends as much money on hunting, a sport that members on this site are suppose to love should always get the benefit of the doubt. Go cry on a peta website. On a hunting website hunters should be supported and innocent until proved guilty. We're a small enough minority as it is.
i would love to see the Wdfw get counter sued and absolutely screwed. I am talking class action screwed. I don't know all the facts but if someone with obsential authority green lighted a hunt and now someone is having their personal reputation ruined as a result. Now the same department decided to press charges. Things could and should get real expensive for the Wdfw.
Sorry, the TR fanboys are grasping at straws here. It seems they want to insulate him because he is rich and can afford these tags. The snide remarks about the ram are uncalled for and unsportsmanlike. But the jealousy train is so wore out its pathetic. Whether Reichert is found guilty of illegal harvest or not, the decision he made to take this bull comes with consequences. From everything said here and from both sides, he made the decision to tag this bull regardless of the consequences because "he doesn't really care what people think". Cool. Good for him. One of the consequences is a unknown amount of speculation and bashing on public forums.For the record I'm not a TR fanboy. These tags have created controversy for 20 years. I don't even agree with some of the ideology that goes along with them. If anyone is grasping at straws it is the department and it is reaping what it sows.
If I had rolled up popped the bull and loaded him up in my truck. I would fully expect the same treatment in the huntwa court. Probably much worse because I would have been tagless, and trespassing along with hunting in a closed unit. The argument that all the publicity is because he is high profile is just dumb. The bull was high profile. Don't take that away from him.
I am also not a member of these (there are several different ones) auction tag holder fan clubs. Many comments from the start of this whole debacle have been rooted by interpersonal relationships.
Did the county process the case and present it to the prosecutors office?i would love to see the Wdfw get counter sued and absolutely screwed. I am talking class action screwed. I don't know all the facts but if someone with obsential authority green lighted a hunt and now someone is having their personal reputation ruined as a result. Now the same department decided to press charges. Things could and should get real expensive for the Wdfw.
I'm not positive, but I don't think WDFW is the one pressing the charges. I thought I read in this thread that it's the county that filed the charges.
Criminal charges are filed by a prosecutor, not a state agency like WDFW.Bob33,
I just kind of think about the issues UCwarden had when you bring up internal WDFW investigations.Criminal charges are filed by a prosecutor, not a state agency like WDFW.Bob33,
Was an outside agency brought in to investigate and process this case? Is there potential involvement by officers? At first I was a little confused but understood what the poster meant by saying the WDFW pressed charges . Is there more to the charges internally with the department?
. I don't know all the facts
No such thing as exonerating circumstances phool?
You asked for evidence of guilt, of this there is no question, he killed a branched antler bull in unit 334........period, can't spin that!
As I said, everything else is up to the courts.
Guilt is decided at the end of the trial, not the beginning. Even with a confession
Class action lawsuits are not lawsuits that necessarily harm lots of people. They are awarded to punish wrongdoers in such a harsh way as that it will deter others from making the same mistake.
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?
It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.
Was that really a serious question?
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?
It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.
Was that really a serious question?
And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.
Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?
It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.
Was that really a serious question?
And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.
Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?
Yes,
It's also in the regs that its restricted. You can't choose which regs your want to read and follow. If they can read certain parts of the regs they can read the whole thing. I don't understand the selective reasoning by you.
Speaking for myself...
I see a lot of hatred of the fact that the guy has been successful in life. This is America, we all have a choice in what direction we take with our lives and we all have the option of doing what it takes to make a better living so we can afford to buy these tags. The irony that nobody considers is that the money from these special tags helps fund wildlife management and ultimately keeps the price lower for everyone else to hunt cheaper. :dunno:
FACT, many comments involve: his wealth; that he got a big bull most thought was off-limits; or that it was easy to shoot the bull, he didn't have to hike 20 miles and summit a dozen mountains to kill it. We all have different reasons why we hunt and we all have different methods how we hunt, but none of that should be a part of this conversation, ethics is a different conversation.
It sounds like he had landowner permission and WDFW permission to shoot the bull, unless that is proven false in court it may be pretty hard to convict him of breaking the law. The question is did he violate the law or not, in my opinion we should let the court figure out the truth!
(These comments are my personal opinion, Hunting-Washington is an internet service provider and has taken no official position on this issue.)
Hunters just like to bring down other hunters for some reason. They claim it's not jealousy but I see that in many responses on this thread. The moral hunt police are the most hypocritical people I meet. Those that claim and preach they follow the law and bash someone that makes a mistake only makes me more suspicious of them. It's no different than the preacher or politician railing against gay people. Yep, they are gay. I see it time after time in my profession with hunting charges. They get up and say to the judge they teach hunter ed, work for WDFW,, never break the law, etc. in front of the judge.
Unlawful Big Game hunting encompasses a lot of different types of conduct. Whether you have a tag but are just out of the unit, tag an animal later, tag it for someone else, etc. I'm still maintaining probably half the people calling out TR have done this or a Title 77 charge at some point in their life. Those that preach the loudest are probably the biggest offenders. I've hunted with zillions of people over the years and tons on Huntwa. So has Bearpaw and I bet he sees small issues daily. Maybe they don't have their hunter orange on, have their clip loaded in the car, etc. Most guys cut a corner here and there but maybe not that serious of a crime. Do the best you can and they are so confusing your bound to error into an issue you didn't realize. Lots of archers don't have the proper arrow for their bow under the law.
So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting... :rolleyes:
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?
It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.
Was that really a serious question?
And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.
Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?
Yes,
It's also in the regs that its restricted. You can't choose which regs your want to read and follow. If they can read certain parts of the regs they can read the whole thing. I don't understand the selective reasoning by you.
:yeah: they should be cited and "it depends" whether or not they should be labeled a poacher. If it was negligence, as in an oversight or just poor judgement in failing to read and understand the restrictions on the tag they are holding and/or the Unit they are hunting in, then it could be that they just screwed up. It could be an isolated case of using poor judgement.
However if they participated in a deliberate and systematic orchestration of a scheme by which they could take an animal they know (like have been told numerous times), or should know (like in have been told numerous times but are too thick headed), is not legal in the GMU they are hunting in... then they are a poacher and an unrepentant poacher at that.
I've asked numerous times...what prompted you guys to call wdfw? Something someone told you, something you read in the regs, the feeling that bulls don't get that big living in a field where seasons are ever open for them? You obviously realized something was not right...what was it?In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?
It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.
Was that really a serious question?
And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.
Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?
Yes,
It's also in the regs that its restricted. You can't choose which regs your want to read and follow. If they can read certain parts of the regs they can read the whole thing. I don't understand the selective reasoning by you.
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?
It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.
Was that really a serious question?
And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.
Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?
Yes,
It's also in the regs that its restricted. You can't choose which regs your want to read and follow. If they can read certain parts of the regs they can read the whole thing. I don't understand the selective reasoning by you.
:yeah: they should be cited and "it depends" whether or not they should be labeled a poacher. If it was negligence, as in an oversight or just poor judgement in failing to read and understand the restrictions on the tag they are holding and/or the Unit they are hunting in, then it could be that they just screwed up. It could be an isolated case of using poor judgement.
However if they participated in a deliberate and systematic orchestration of a scheme by which they could take an animal they know (like have been told numerous times), or should know (like in have been told numerous times but are too thick headed), is not legal in the GMU they are hunting in... then they are a poacher and an unrepentant poacher at that.
By saying they "knew" and we're told is dishonest at best, but more like slanderous in reality. But it your repeat it enough a few of the other city guys might believe another city guy.......
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?
It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.
Was that really a serious question?
And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.
Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?
Yes,
It's also in the regs that its restricted. You can't choose which regs your want to read and follow. If they can read certain parts of the regs they can read the whole thing. I don't understand the selective reasoning by you.
Seems like a guy could go to a game farm and shoot a bigger one for a whole lot cheaper and a whole lot less hassle.I believe that would only qualify for SCI, not B&C. The bull in question I think will be eligible for B&C for muzzleloader.
(http://).....So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting... :rolleyes:
Pope, there may be some people butt hurt about his money. And you are right, most will have broken game laws somewhere along the line.
This is a Clintonian what’s the definition of “is” type of argument that is being made. It’s a legalistic bit of maneuvering, a charade. People aren’t dumb. They can read the regs. It’s plain as day that this discussion of true vs regular spike was an attempt to thread a legal needle. They were hoping, angling and prying to get someone at WDFW to contort the regs into a pretzel in order to claim the unit was open to branch bull hunting. Not caring that even if they would say it’s “ok” that it should never be done. That particular bull, where it lived, should not have been shot as a matter of good public relations and decency.
To the others that think his reputation is at stake in the court case. No, it isn’t. A very popular animal, open to public view and regularly photographed, safe from any legal hunting pressure, living in wide open alfalfa fields, no longer behaving like a wild elk in or out of elk season was shot with the ease of a killing a heifer by a someone who paid $50k+ for the privilege, observed now by hunters who see the rules as clear as water. The harm to reputation has nothing to do with the case outcome. Many legal, yet repugnant, things can be done. If you know that bull has notoriety and is loved in the community and you wiggle around a way to shoot it anyway right on that open field, you are putting a stick right in those people’s eye. There’s no way around that fact. A call may insulate you from legal penalty, but it can do nothing to protect someone from the public’s judgment.
A satirical description of the hunt:
I drove up on the black top and parked. A school bus and a mom in her minivan passed by. Still in the cab, the wily creature was hard to make out as it stood in the thickest cover, the deepest 10 inches of alfalfa this field was choked with. I put down my road mug of starbucks and the second half of my bear claw on the dash. I pulled up my Swaro 10x50’s, yep, that’s the bull. He was a bit faint, but at 100 yards I was able to pick him out through the thick stuff. My door closing behind me with a thud I made for the back of the truck. My buddy Zeb helped and loaded the gun. My friends and I all wore jeans and flannel shirts so that we would fit in the bull’s natural environment. Just another farmer over here, no worries mr elk (at least that’s the theory). I could hear traffic and children’s voices in the distance of this wild place. Next we came up with a plan to get on this beast. After much debate…. I began to walk straight at him. One, two, three steps, stopped. Forgot my hat on the hood of the truck. Darn it!!! I hope this doesn’t spoil the stalk. I went back for my hat when it occurred to me that I hadn’t finished my danish so I opened the rig and stuffed the 2nd half in my mouth and pulled my hat down tight for the stalk. My pulse rate was easily 70 now with the anticipation. I pulled up my Swaros again, there he was, now laying down and chewing cud in the gnarly thicket, looking straight at me. Though he was unable to see me in the extreme farmer break up pattern we’re wearing. Two, three, four steps. I’m getting sweaty now and a little nervous so I take a couple minutes to calm down. Five…. That oughta do it. BANG. Flop.
YEAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!! WHAHOOO!!!!! What a hunt, what a great animal…!! Hi Mrs Johnson, we’ll get it out of the field in just a minute, nice dress you have on, is that paisley?
Speaking for myself...
I see a lot of hatred of the fact that the guy has been successful in life. This is America, we all have a choice in what direction we take with our lives and we all have the option of doing what it takes to make a better living so we can afford to buy these tags. The irony that nobody considers is that the money from these special tags helps fund wildlife management and ultimately keeps the price lower for everyone else to hunt cheaper. :dunno:
FACT, many comments involve: his wealth; that he got a big bull most thought was off-limits; or that it was easy to shoot the bull, he didn't have to hike 20 miles and summit a dozen mountains to kill it. We all have different reasons why we hunt and we all have different methods how we hunt, but none of that should be a part of this conversation, ethics is a different conversation.
It sounds like he had landowner permission and WDFW permission to shoot the bull, unless that is proven false in court it may be pretty hard to convict him of breaking the law. The question is did he violate the law or not, in my opinion we should let the court figure out the truth!
(These comments are my personal opinion, Hunting-Washington is an internet service provider and has taken no official position on this issue.)
Hunters just like to bring down other hunters for some reason. They claim it's not jealousy but I see that in many responses on this thread. The moral hunt police are the most hypocritical people I meet. Those that claim and preach they follow the law and bash someone that makes a mistake only makes me more suspicious of them. It's no different than the preacher or politician railing against gay people. Yep, they are gay. I see it time after time in my profession with hunting charges. They get up and say to the judge they teach hunter ed, work for WDFW,, never break the law, etc. in front of the judge.
Unlawful Big Game hunting encompasses a lot of different types of conduct. Whether you have a tag but are just out of the unit, tag an animal later, tag it for someone else, etc. I'm still maintaining probably half the people calling out TR have done this or a Title 77 charge at some point in their life. Those that preach the loudest are probably the biggest offenders. I've hunted with zillions of people over the years and tons on Huntwa. So has Bearpaw and I bet he sees small issues daily. Maybe they don't have their hunter orange on, have their clip loaded in the car, etc. Most guys cut a corner here and there but maybe not that serious of a crime. Do the best you can and they are so confusing your bound to error into an issue you didn't realize. Lots of archers don't have the proper arrow for their bow under the law.
So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting... :rolleyes:
Pope, you seem to be a very reasonable guy. I don't recall seeing a post you made that I don't agree with. I think you nailed it on this one. I have been told a guy who has been very vocal on this and many other forums on this issue has had more than one legal issue himself with game laws. Is that type of thing public information? I don't know where to find it? If it is public info I would like to know how to find it so it it was posted here no rules were broken by posting personal information.
Seems like a guy could go to a game farm and shoot a bigger one for a whole lot cheaper and a whole lot less hassle.I believe that would only qualify for SCI, not B&C. The bull in question I think will be eligible for B&C for muzzleloader.
The money does not go to conservation. Sorry to break your hearts. Just for fun, find a law you consider confusing, call 2 or 3 wdfw offices and ask them for an answer. I guarantee you will get more than one answer. I have done it many times. Sometimes they even tell me it depends on the game wardens interpretation of the rule whether you will get a ticket or not."
I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Here is a scenario, Speed limit is 60mph from point A to point B, (point B is their destination)
1. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Did they break the law? Was this action illegal or legal?
2. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Before arriving at their destination, a cop pulls them over and cites them with a speeding infraction. Did they break the law??? Again, illegal or legal???
This is why I believe most on here are furious with the happenings of this killing.
1. Of course speeding is illegal, just because you got away with it....does not make it the right thing to do.
2. Of course they broke law by speeding.
Here is a scenario, Speed limit is 60mph from point A to point B, (point B is their destination)
1. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Did they break the law? Was this action illegal or legal?
2. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Before arriving at their destination, a cop pulls them over and cites them with a speeding infraction. Did they break the law??? Again, illegal or legal???
This is why I believe most on here are furious with the happenings of this killing.
1. Of course speeding is illegal, just because you got away with it....does not make it the right thing to do.
2. Of course they broke law by speeding.
What about person C who calls an officer before leaving on his trip and asks if it is okay to drive 80 from point A to B? And the officer says go ahead?
Here is a scenario, Speed limit is 60mph from point A to point B, (point B is their destination)
1. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Did they break the law? Was this action illegal or legal?
2. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Before arriving at their destination, a cop pulls them over and cites them with a speeding infraction. Did they break the law??? Again, illegal or legal???
This is why I believe most on here are furious with the happenings of this killing.
1. Of course speeding is illegal, just because you got away with it....does not make it the right thing to do.
2. Of course they broke law by speeding.
What about person C who calls an officer before leaving on his trip and asks if it is okay to drive 80 from point A to B? And the officer says go ahead?
(http://).....So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting... :rolleyes:
Pope, there may be some people butt hurt about his money. And you are right, most will have broken game laws somewhere along the line.
This is a Clintonian what’s the definition of “is” type of argument that is being made. It’s a legalistic bit of maneuvering, a charade. People aren’t dumb. They can read the regs. It’s plain as day that this discussion of true vs regular spike was an attempt to thread a legal needle. They were hoping, angling and prying to get someone at WDFW to contort the regs into a pretzel in order to claim the unit was open to branch bull hunting. Not caring that even if they would say it’s “ok” that it should never be done. That particular bull, where it lived, should not have been shot as a matter of good public relations and decency.
To the others that think his reputation is at stake in the court case. No, it isn’t. A very popular animal, open to public view and regularly photographed, safe from any legal hunting pressure, living in wide open alfalfa fields, no longer behaving like a wild elk in or out of elk season was shot with the ease of a killing a heifer by a someone who paid $50k+ for the privilege, observed now by hunters who see the rules as clear as water. The harm to reputation has nothing to do with the case outcome. Many legal, yet repugnant, things can be done. If you know that bull has notoriety and is loved in the community and you wiggle around a way to shoot it anyway right on that open field, you are putting a stick right in those people’s eye. There’s no way around that fact. A call may insulate you from legal penalty, but it can do nothing to protect someone from the public’s judgment.
A satirical description of the hunt:
I drove up on the black top and parked. A school bus and a mom in her minivan passed by. Still in the cab, the wily creature was hard to make out as it stood in the thickest cover, the deepest 10 inches of alfalfa this field was choked with. I put down my road mug of starbucks and the second half of my bear claw on the dash. I pulled up my Swaro 10x50’s, yep, that’s the bull. He was a bit faint, but at 100 yards I was able to pick him out through the thick stuff. My door closing behind me with a thud I made for the back of the truck. My buddy Zeb helped and loaded the gun. My friends and I all wore jeans and flannel shirts so that we would fit in the bull’s natural environment. Just another farmer over here, no worries mr elk (at least that’s the theory). I could hear traffic and children’s voices in the distance of this wild place. Next we came up with a plan to get on this beast. After much debate…. I began to walk straight at him. One, two, three steps, stopped. Forgot my hat on the hood of the truck. Darn it!!! I hope this doesn’t spoil the stalk. I went back for my hat when it occurred to me that I hadn’t finished my danish so I opened the rig and stuffed the 2nd half in my mouth and pulled my hat down tight for the stalk. My pulse rate was easily 70 now with the anticipation. I pulled up my Swaros again, there he was, now laying down and chewing cud in the gnarly thicket, looking straight at me. Though he was unable to see me in the extreme farmer break up pattern we’re wearing. Two, three, four steps. I’m getting sweaty now and a little nervous so I take a couple minutes to calm down. Five…. That oughta do it. BANG. Flop.
YEAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!! WHAHOOO!!!!! What a hunt, what a great animal…!! Hi Mrs Johnson, we’ll get it out of the field in just a minute, nice dress you have on, is that paisley?
Doesn't seem most on here agree with this post. They are just fine when another member on here helps kill a yard bull that some called Cupcake and even used bait. It was also a very well known bull. In fact your story you came up with much more resembles that situation than the one we are talking about here.if one shouldn't have been done for public relations and decency, the other one should definitely not have either. But the some on here call Cupcake a trophy, but not the other....
(http://).....So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting... :rolleyes:
Pope, there may be some people butt hurt about his money. And you are right, most will have broken game laws somewhere along the line.
This is a Clintonian what’s the definition of “is” type of argument that is being made. It’s a legalistic bit of maneuvering, a charade. People aren’t dumb. They can read the regs. It’s plain as day that this discussion of true vs regular spike was an attempt to thread a legal needle. They were hoping, angling and prying to get someone at WDFW to contort the regs into a pretzel in order to claim the unit was open to branch bull hunting. Not caring that even if they would say it’s “ok” that it should never be done. That particular bull, where it lived, should not have been shot as a matter of good public relations and decency.
To the others that think his reputation is at stake in the court case. No, it isn’t. A very popular animal, open to public view and regularly photographed, safe from any legal hunting pressure, living in wide open alfalfa fields, no longer behaving like a wild elk in or out of elk season was shot with the ease of a killing a heifer by a someone who paid $50k+ for the privilege, observed now by hunters who see the rules as clear as water. The harm to reputation has nothing to do with the case outcome. Many legal, yet repugnant, things can be done. If you know that bull has notoriety and is loved in the community and you wiggle around a way to shoot it anyway right on that open field, you are putting a stick right in those people’s eye. There’s no way around that fact. A call may insulate you from legal penalty, but it can do nothing to protect someone from the public’s judgment.
A satirical description of the hunt:
I drove up on the black top and parked. A school bus and a mom in her minivan passed by. Still in the cab, the wily creature was hard to make out as it stood in the thickest cover, the deepest 10 inches of alfalfa this field was choked with. I put down my road mug of starbucks and the second half of my bear claw on the dash. I pulled up my Swaro 10x50’s, yep, that’s the bull. He was a bit faint, but at 100 yards I was able to pick him out through the thick stuff. My door closing behind me with a thud I made for the back of the truck. My buddy Zeb helped and loaded the gun. My friends and I all wore jeans and flannel shirts so that we would fit in the bull’s natural environment. Just another farmer over here, no worries mr elk (at least that’s the theory). I could hear traffic and children’s voices in the distance of this wild place. Next we came up with a plan to get on this beast. After much debate…. I began to walk straight at him. One, two, three steps, stopped. Forgot my hat on the hood of the truck. Darn it!!! I hope this doesn’t spoil the stalk. I went back for my hat when it occurred to me that I hadn’t finished my danish so I opened the rig and stuffed the 2nd half in my mouth and pulled my hat down tight for the stalk. My pulse rate was easily 70 now with the anticipation. I pulled up my Swaros again, there he was, now laying down and chewing cud in the gnarly thicket, looking straight at me. Though he was unable to see me in the extreme farmer break up pattern we’re wearing. Two, three, four steps. I’m getting sweaty now and a little nervous so I take a couple minutes to calm down. Five…. That oughta do it. BANG. Flop.
YEAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!! WHAHOOO!!!!! What a hunt, what a great animal…!! Hi Mrs Johnson, we’ll get it out of the field in just a minute, nice dress you have on, is that paisley?
Doesn't seem most on here agree with this post. They are just fine when another member on here helps kill a yard bull that some called Cupcake and even used bait. It was also a very well known bull. In fact your story you came up with much more resembles that situation than the one we are talking about here.if one shouldn't have been done for public relations and decency, the other one should definitely not have either. But the some on here call Cupcake a trophy, but not the other....
Where you on this hunt? How do you know what happened? You question everyone who goes against TR yet you continue to try to muddy the waters about a completely LEGAL hunt. It just reeks of jealousy. Maybe it's because a big payday was missed when another hunter shot the other bull TR was after????
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?
It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.
Was that really a serious question?
And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.
Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?
Yes,
It's also in the regs that its restricted. You can't choose which regs your want to read and follow. If they can read certain parts of the regs they can read the whole thing. I don't understand the selective reasoning by you.
I don't see how that is selective reasoning? If I have a question, you are saying calling WDFW for clarification is not enough? Let's say I can't read because of a disability so I call WDFW to ask about the rules, I a a poacher if they give me bad info?
Most logical people would and do agree a person who is proactive and calls WDFW to make sure they are legal should be able to trust that info. Guess there is always going to be that jealous crowd of guys like you and a few others on here that will jump on a witchhunt.
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I'm wondering why the case is even being prosecuted if wdfw gave permission. Why would they even investigate? Is it simply because wdfw really had no legal authority? Sure would be nice to know the exact wording of the questions and conversation with wdfw. Too bad there isn't anyone in the know responding to this thread to put and end to the speculation. ..........
I think the last thing the WDFW wanted was for this case to get prosecuted. That was a decision made by the county due to outside pressure they were receiving i believe . As far a the WDFW investigation, to the best of my knowledge not a single person in the party was even interviewed. That seems really strange to me if there truly was a investigation done.
So you weren't even there yet you spout off like you actually know the truth ? You act like you're the only one that knows what actually happened, except you weren't there. You had to be told the story, so you don't even know how much of the story is actually true.(http://).....So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting... :rolleyes:
Pope, there may be some people butt hurt about his money. And you are right, most will have broken game laws somewhere along the line.
This is a Clintonian what’s the definition of “is” type of argument that is being made. It’s a legalistic bit of maneuvering, a charade. People aren’t dumb. They can read the regs. It’s plain as day that this discussion of true vs regular spike was an attempt to thread a legal needle. They were hoping, angling and prying to get someone at WDFW to contort the regs into a pretzel in order to claim the unit was open to branch bull hunting. Not caring that even if they would say it’s “ok” that it should never be done. That particular bull, where it lived, should not have been shot as a matter of good public relations and decency.
To the others that think his reputation is at stake in the court case. No, it isn’t. A very popular animal, open to public view and regularly photographed, safe from any legal hunting pressure, living in wide open alfalfa fields, no longer behaving like a wild elk in or out of elk season was shot with the ease of a killing a heifer by a someone who paid $50k+ for the privilege, observed now by hunters who see the rules as clear as water. The harm to reputation has nothing to do with the case outcome. Many legal, yet repugnant, things can be done. If you know that bull has notoriety and is loved in the community and you wiggle around a way to shoot it anyway right on that open field, you are putting a stick right in those people’s eye. There’s no way around that fact. A call may insulate you from legal penalty, but it can do nothing to protect someone from the public’s judgment.
A satirical description of the hunt:
I drove up on the black top and parked. A school bus and a mom in her minivan passed by. Still in the cab, the wily creature was hard to make out as it stood in the thickest cover, the deepest 10 inches of alfalfa this field was choked with. I put down my road mug of starbucks and the second half of my bear claw on the dash. I pulled up my Swaro 10x50’s, yep, that’s the bull. He was a bit faint, but at 100 yards I was able to pick him out through the thick stuff. My door closing behind me with a thud I made for the back of the truck. My buddy Zeb helped and loaded the gun. My friends and I all wore jeans and flannel shirts so that we would fit in the bull’s natural environment. Just another farmer over here, no worries mr elk (at least that’s the theory). I could hear traffic and children’s voices in the distance of this wild place. Next we came up with a plan to get on this beast. After much debate…. I began to walk straight at him. One, two, three steps, stopped. Forgot my hat on the hood of the truck. Darn it!!! I hope this doesn’t spoil the stalk. I went back for my hat when it occurred to me that I hadn’t finished my danish so I opened the rig and stuffed the 2nd half in my mouth and pulled my hat down tight for the stalk. My pulse rate was easily 70 now with the anticipation. I pulled up my Swaros again, there he was, now laying down and chewing cud in the gnarly thicket, looking straight at me. Though he was unable to see me in the extreme farmer break up pattern we’re wearing. Two, three, four steps. I’m getting sweaty now and a little nervous so I take a couple minutes to calm down. Five…. That oughta do it. BANG. Flop.
YEAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!! WHAHOOO!!!!! What a hunt, what a great animal…!! Hi Mrs Johnson, we’ll get it out of the field in just a minute, nice dress you have on, is that paisley?
Doesn't seem most on here agree with this post. They are just fine when another member on here helps kill a yard bull that some called Cupcake and even used bait. It was also a very well known bull. In fact your story you came up with much more resembles that situation than the one we are talking about here.if one shouldn't have been done for public relations and decency, the other one should definitely not have either. But the some on here call Cupcake a trophy, but not the other....
Where you on this hunt? How do you know what happened? You question everyone who goes against TR yet you continue to try to muddy the waters about a completely LEGAL hunt. It just reeks of jealousy. Maybe it's because a big payday was missed when another hunter shot the other bull TR was after????
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No I wasn't there but did speak with someone who saw it. Your right it was legal and I don't have a problem with it. I was quoting a post that had commented about shooting a field bull and the trophy factor in that, I was just pointing out how some on here will call one a trophy and not the other.
Here is a scenario, Speed limit is 60mph from point A to point B, (point B is their destination)
1. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Did they break the law? Was this action illegal or legal?
2. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Before arriving at their destination, a cop pulls them over and cites them with a speeding infraction. Did they break the law??? Again, illegal or legal???
This is why I believe most on here are furious with the happenings of this killing.
1. Of course speeding is illegal, just because you got away with it....does not make it the right thing to do.
2. Of course they broke law by speeding.
What about person C who calls an officer before leaving on his trip and asks if it is okay to drive 80 from point A to B? And the officer says go ahead?
And the officer was told he was on speaker phone when the conversation started and was told there were several people there listening to what he said........
M-Ray
I followed through on my part and went and talked with are mutual friend and I think you called him the night what were his words to you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(http://).....So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting... :rolleyes:
Pope, there may be some people butt hurt about his money. And you are right, most will have broken game laws somewhere along the line.
This is a Clintonian what’s the definition of “is” type of argument that is being made. It’s a legalistic bit of maneuvering, a charade. People aren’t dumb. They can read the regs. It’s plain as day that this discussion of true vs regular spike was an attempt to thread a legal needle. They were hoping, angling and prying to get someone at WDFW to contort the regs into a pretzel in order to claim the unit was open to branch bull hunting. Not caring that even if they would say it’s “ok” that it should never be done. That particular bull, where it lived, should not have been shot as a matter of good public relations and decency.
To the others that think his reputation is at stake in the court case. No, it isn’t. A very popular animal, open to public view and regularly photographed, safe from any legal hunting pressure, living in wide open alfalfa fields, no longer behaving like a wild elk in or out of elk season was shot with the ease of a killing a heifer by a someone who paid $50k+ for the privilege, observed now by hunters who see the rules as clear as water. The harm to reputation has nothing to do with the case outcome. Many legal, yet repugnant, things can be done. If you know that bull has notoriety and is loved in the community and you wiggle around a way to shoot it anyway right on that open field, you are putting a stick right in those people’s eye. There’s no way around that fact. A call may insulate you from legal penalty, but it can do nothing to protect someone from the public’s judgment.
A satirical description of the hunt:
I drove up on the black top and parked. A school bus and a mom in her minivan passed by. Still in the cab, the wily creature was hard to make out as it stood in the thickest cover, the deepest 10 inches of alfalfa this field was choked with. I put down my road mug of starbucks and the second half of my bear claw on the dash. I pulled up my Swaro 10x50’s, yep, that’s the bull. He was a bit faint, but at 100 yards I was able to pick him out through the thick stuff. My door closing behind me with a thud I made for the back of the truck. My buddy Zeb helped and loaded the gun. My friends and I all wore jeans and flannel shirts so that we would fit in the bull’s natural environment. Just another farmer over here, no worries mr elk (at least that’s the theory). I could hear traffic and children’s voices in the distance of this wild place. Next we came up with a plan to get on this beast. After much debate…. I began to walk straight at him. One, two, three steps, stopped. Forgot my hat on the hood of the truck. Darn it!!! I hope this doesn’t spoil the stalk. I went back for my hat when it occurred to me that I hadn’t finished my danish so I opened the rig and stuffed the 2nd half in my mouth and pulled my hat down tight for the stalk. My pulse rate was easily 70 now with the anticipation. I pulled up my Swaros again, there he was, now laying down and chewing cud in the gnarly thicket, looking straight at me. Though he was unable to see me in the extreme farmer break up pattern we’re wearing. Two, three, four steps. I’m getting sweaty now and a little nervous so I take a couple minutes to calm down. Five…. That oughta do it. BANG. Flop.
YEAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!! WHAHOOO!!!!! What a hunt, what a great animal…!! Hi Mrs Johnson, we’ll get it out of the field in just a minute, nice dress you have on, is that paisley?
Doesn't seem most on here agree with this post. They are just fine when another member on here helps kill a yard bull that some called Cupcake and even used bait. It was also a very well known bull. In fact your story you came up with much more resembles that situation than the one we are talking about here.if one shouldn't have been done for public relations and decency, the other one should definitely not have either. But the some on here call Cupcake a trophy, but not the other....
Speaking for myself...
I see a lot of hatred of the fact that the guy has been successful in life. This is America, we all have a choice in what direction we take with our lives and we all have the option of doing what it takes to make a better living so we can afford to buy these tags. The irony that nobody considers is that the money from these special tags helps fund wildlife management and ultimately keeps the price lower for everyone else to hunt cheaper. :dunno:
FACT, many comments involve: his wealth; that he got a big bull most thought was off-limits; or that it was easy to shoot the bull, he didn't have to hike 20 miles and summit a dozen mountains to kill it. We all have different reasons why we hunt and we all have different methods how we hunt, but none of that should be a part of this conversation, ethics is a different conversation.
It sounds like he had landowner permission and WDFW permission to shoot the bull, unless that is proven false in court it may be pretty hard to convict him of breaking the law. The question is did he violate the law or not, in my opinion we should let the court figure out the truth!
(These comments are my personal opinion, Hunting-Washington is an internet service provider and has taken no official position on this issue.)
Hunters just like to bring down other hunters for some reason. They claim it's not jealousy but I see that in many responses on this thread. The moral hunt police are the most hypocritical people I meet. Those that claim and preach they follow the law and bash someone that makes a mistake only makes me more suspicious of them. It's no different than the preacher or politician railing against gay people. Yep, they are gay. I see it time after time in my profession with hunting charges. They get up and say to the judge they teach hunter ed, work for WDFW,, never break the law, etc. in front of the judge.
Unlawful Big Game hunting encompasses a lot of different types of conduct. Whether you have a tag but are just out of the unit, tag an animal later, tag it for someone else, etc. I'm still maintaining probably half the people calling out TR have done this or a Title 77 charge at some point in their life. Those that preach the loudest are probably the biggest offenders. I've hunted with zillions of people over the years and tons on Huntwa. So has Bearpaw and I bet he sees small issues daily. Maybe they don't have their hunter orange on, have their clip loaded in the car, etc. Most guys cut a corner here and there but maybe not that serious of a crime. Do the best you can and they are so confusing your bound to error into an issue you didn't realize. Lots of archers don't have the proper arrow for their bow under the law.
So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting... :rolleyes:
Pope, you seem to be a very reasonable guy. I don't recall seeing a post you made that I don't agree with. I think you nailed it on this one. I have been told a guy who has been very vocal on this and many other forums on this issue has had more than one legal issue himself with game laws. Is that type of thing public information? I don't know where to find it? If it is public info I would like to know how to find it so if it was posted here no rules were broken by posting personal information.
Where was this bull shot?Here's the real question. What do you think of Kam Chancellor?
Where was this bull shot?I am guessing right behind the shoulder :dunno:
Where was this bull shot?
Where was this bull shot?North of the canal.
ThanksSeveral pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
(http://).....So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting... :rolleyes:
Pope, there may be some people butt hurt about his money. And you are right, most will have broken game laws somewhere along the line.
This is a Clintonian what’s the definition of “is” type of argument that is being made. It’s a legalistic bit of maneuvering, a charade. People aren’t dumb. They can read the regs. It’s plain as day that this discussion of true vs regular spike was an attempt to thread a legal needle. They were hoping, angling and prying to get someone at WDFW to contort the regs into a pretzel in order to claim the unit was open to branch bull hunting. Not caring that even if they would say it’s “ok” that it should never be done. That particular bull, where it lived, should not have been shot as a matter of good public relations and decency.
To the others that think his reputation is at stake in the court case. No, it isn’t. A very popular animal, open to public view and regularly photographed, safe from any legal hunting pressure, living in wide open alfalfa fields, no longer behaving like a wild elk in or out of elk season was shot with the ease of a killing a heifer by a someone who paid $50k+ for the privilege, observed now by hunters who see the rules as clear as water. The harm to reputation has nothing to do with the case outcome. Many legal, yet repugnant, things can be done. If you know that bull has notoriety and is loved in the community and you wiggle around a way to shoot it anyway right on that open field, you are putting a stick right in those people’s eye. There’s no way around that fact. A call may insulate you from legal penalty, but it can do nothing to protect someone from the public’s judgment.
A satirical description of the hunt:
I drove up on the black top and parked. A school bus and a mom in her minivan passed by. Still in the cab, the wily creature was hard to make out as it stood in the thickest cover, the deepest 10 inches of alfalfa this field was choked with. I put down my road mug of starbucks and the second half of my bear claw on the dash. I pulled up my Swaro 10x50’s, yep, that’s the bull. He was a bit faint, but at 100 yards I was able to pick him out through the thick stuff. My door closing behind me with a thud I made for the back of the truck. My buddy Zeb helped and loaded the gun. My friends and I all wore jeans and flannel shirts so that we would fit in the bull’s natural environment. Just another farmer over here, no worries mr elk (at least that’s the theory). I could hear traffic and children’s voices in the distance of this wild place. Next we came up with a plan to get on this beast. After much debate…. I began to walk straight at him. One, two, three steps, stopped. Forgot my hat on the hood of the truck. Darn it!!! I hope this doesn’t spoil the stalk. I went back for my hat when it occurred to me that I hadn’t finished my danish so I opened the rig and stuffed the 2nd half in my mouth and pulled my hat down tight for the stalk. My pulse rate was easily 70 now with the anticipation. I pulled up my Swaros again, there he was, now laying down and chewing cud in the gnarly thicket, looking straight at me. Though he was unable to see me in the extreme farmer break up pattern we’re wearing. Two, three, four steps. I’m getting sweaty now and a little nervous so I take a couple minutes to calm down. Five…. That oughta do it. BANG. Flop.
YEAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!! WHAHOOO!!!!! What a hunt, what a great animal…!! Hi Mrs Johnson, we’ll get it out of the field in just a minute, nice dress you have on, is that paisley?
Doesn't seem most on here agree with this post. They are just fine when another member on here helps kill a yard bull that some called Cupcake and even used bait. It was also a very well known bull. In fact your story you came up with much more resembles that situation than the one we are talking about here.if one shouldn't have been done for public relations and decency, the other one should definitely not have either. But the some on here call Cupcake a trophy, but not the other....
Where you on this hunt? How do you know what happened? You question everyone who goes against TR yet you continue to try to muddy the waters about a completely LEGAL hunt. It just reeks of jealousy. Maybe it's because a big payday was missed when another hunter shot the other bull TR was after????
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No I wasn't there but did speak with someone who saw it. Your right it was legal and I don't have a problem with it. I was quoting a post that had commented about shooting a field bull and the trophy factor in that, I was just pointing out how some on here will call one a trophy and not the other.
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
kiticaashunter,
Where you present when the Bullwinkle Bull was shot?
You can't say whether you were present or not? :dunno:kiticaashunter,
Where you present when the Bullwinkle Bull was shot?
I have provided more details than anyone else on this issue. I have said all I can at this point. I hope the others that continue to ask me questions read this and stop asking for things I can't tell them. There will be a point this whole thing is over and the truth will be proven.
You can't say whether you were present or not? :dunno:kiticaashunter,
Where you present when the Bullwinkle Bull was shot?
I have provided more details than anyone else on this issue. I have said all I can at this point. I hope the others that continue to ask me questions read this and stop asking for things I can't tell them. There will be a point this whole thing is over and the truth will be proven.
So he is passionate about this case. :dunno: I am sure you understand as a new member to this forum, with 49 posts, 48 in this thread and 1 in off topics talking about JD. Just saying you are pretty focused as well.Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
The 24hourcampfire thread is hilarious! Started by none other than a JDHasty and he made most of the posts in the 5 page tread. Most of the rest of the posts were people bashing JDHasty. Funny thing about the ifish thread, yep JDHasty is there as well.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4099641#Post4099641
Here is yet another one all the way across the country in Pennsylvania, anyone want to make any bets on who started that one? Yet again it was JDHasty........
A yes or no would be to factual of a statement. I would also cause an avalanche of questions going back to the post of claiming to clear things up.
You can't say whether you were present or not? :dunno:kiticaashunter,
Where you present when the Bullwinkle Bull was shot?
I have provided more details than anyone else on this issue. I have said all I can at this point. I hope the others that continue to ask me questions read this and stop asking for things I can't tell them. There will be a point this whole thing is over and the truth will be proven.
Respectfully, please read what I just wrote. I have given all the details I am going to on this issue on a public forum. I'm sorry if that is not up to your satisfaction.
A yes or no would be to factual of a statement. I would also cause an avalanche of questions going back to the post of claiming to clear things up.
I have not said a thing on this issues that was not factual. You will all see that when things go though due process. I have big shoulders and can handle the comments you continue to make towards me, really don't care. I understand the mentality of you city folks.
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
The 24hourcampfire thread is hilarious! Started by none other than a JDHasty and he made most of the posts in the 5 page tread. Most of the rest of the posts were people bashing JDHasty. Funny thing about the ifish thread, yep JDHasty is there as well.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4099641#Post4099641
Here is yet another one all the way across the country in Pennsylvania, anyone want to make any bets on who started that one? Yet again it was JDHasty........
You can't say whether you were present or not? :dunno:kiticaashunter,
Where you present when the Bullwinkle Bull was shot?
I have provided more details than anyone else on this issue. I have said all I can at this point. I hope the others that continue to ask me questions read this and stop asking for things I can't tell them. There will be a point this whole thing is over and the truth will be proven.
Respectfully, please read what I just wrote. I have given all the details I am going to on this issue on a public forum. I'm sorry if that is not up to your satisfaction.
Guess based on most of your comments you've given the perception that you where one of the crowd. But now you won't awnser a yes or no question. No big deal for me but I think the credibility train just left the station and yours was on it. But hey, what do I know I wasn't there.
You can't say whether you were present or not? :dunno:kiticaashunter,
Where you present when the Bullwinkle Bull was shot?
I have provided more details than anyone else on this issue. I have said all I can at this point. I hope the others that continue to ask me questions read this and stop asking for things I can't tell them. There will be a point this whole thing is over and the truth will be proven.
No I wasn't there but did speak with someone who saw it. Your right it was legal and I don't have a problem with it. I was quoting a post that had commented about shooting a field bull and the trophy factor in that, I was just pointing out how some on here will call one a trophy and not the other.
A yes or no would be to factual of a statement. I would also cause an avalanche of questions going back to the post of claiming to clear things up.
I have not said a thing on this issues that was not factual. You will all see that when things go though due process. I have big shoulders and can handle the comments you continue to make towards me, really don't care. I understand the mentality of you city folks.
You appear to care very much. You weren't there apparently and are not willing to clear up anything. You have an issue with Jd, all of us, and have not said anything but it will all be clear in the end.
So what's the point of continuing the discussion? We don't have all the facts yet and are speculating about many things. You say you have facts so let's hear 'em! Oh, if you weren't there then don't bother.
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
The 24hourcampfire thread is hilarious! Started by none other than a JDHasty and he made most of the posts in the 5 page tread. Most of the rest of the posts were people bashing JDHasty. Funny thing about the ifish thread, yep JDHasty is there as well.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4099641#Post4099641
Here is yet another one all the way across the country in Pennsylvania, anyone want to make any bets on who started that one? Yet again it was JDHasty........
So after Cboom (who impresses me as none other than kiticaashunter alter ego) stalked me all over this site for the better part of a month.... After I had left the prior thread alone for north of a couple weeks.... After I had been called out for a second time.... you better believe I responded.
Hope you enjoyed it, you have asked for every bit of what I have posted.
And as for the Pennsylvania sites, I bought a scope form a woodchuck hunter and he invited me to join a site he and other chuck hunters post on. They pointed me toward the fact that Todd Reichert of Salkum WA has been the primary subject of a heck of a lot of controversy in their State. They invited me over to the other sites they post on. I bet TR sure wishes you had let sleeping dogs lie.
You can't say whether you were present or not? :dunno:kiticaashunter,
Where you present when the Bullwinkle Bull was shot?
I have provided more details than anyone else on this issue. I have said all I can at this point. I hope the others that continue to ask me questions read this and stop asking for things I can't tell them. There will be a point this whole thing is over and the truth will be proven.
No I wasn't there but did speak with someone who saw it. Your right it was legal and I don't have a problem with it. I was quoting a post that had commented about shooting a field bull and the trophy factor in that, I was just pointing out how some on here will call one a trophy and not the other.
In his own words. He wasn't there. He just wants people to assume he knows what he is talking about. Even though he at best is working with second hand information. Information that may be naturally biased seeing as how it was provided by the subject/subjects in question.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
You're right. I guess you spend so much time try to deflect attention for the illegal hunt by talking about the legal hunt that I got them confused. Although I'm betting you probably don't have first hand information on the closed unit hunt either.You can't say whether you were present or not? :dunno:kiticaashunter,
Where you present when the Bullwinkle Bull was shot?
I have provided more details than anyone else on this issue. I have said all I can at this point. I hope the others that continue to ask me questions read this and stop asking for things I can't tell them. There will be a point this whole thing is over and the truth will be proven.
No I wasn't there but did speak with someone who saw it. Your right it was legal and I don't have a problem with it. I was quoting a post that had commented about shooting a field bull and the trophy factor in that, I was just pointing out how some on here will call one a trophy and not the other.
In his own words. He wasn't there. He just wants people to assume he knows what he is talking about. Even though he at best is working with second hand information. Information that may be naturally biased seeing as how it was provided by the subject/subjects in question.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Might think about working on your reading comprehension.
Anyone who doesn't give hunters the benefit of the doubt is an anti hunter and doesn't belong on a hunting website they should join peta or glow.
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
The 24hourcampfire thread is hilarious! Started by none other than a JDHasty and he made most of the posts in the 5 page tread. Most of the rest of the posts were people bashing JDHasty. Funny thing about the ifish thread, yep JDHasty is there as well.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4099641#Post4099641
Here is yet another one all the way across the country in Pennsylvania, anyone want to make any bets on who started that one? Yet again it was JDHasty........
If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Here is a scenario, Speed limit is 60mph from point A to point B, (point B is their destination)
1. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Did they break the law? Was this action illegal or legal?
2. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Before arriving at their destination, a cop pulls them over and cites them with a speeding infraction. Did they break the law??? Again, illegal or legal???
This is why I believe most on here are furious with the happenings of this killing.
1. Of course speeding is illegal, just because you got away with it....does not make it the right thing to do.
2. Of course they broke law by speeding.
What about person C who calls an officer before leaving on his trip and asks if it is okay to drive 80 from point A to B? And the officer says go ahead?
And the officer was told he was on speaker phone when the conversation started and was told there were several people there listening to what he said........
This comment is very interesting. If true, sounds like witnesses were wanted in case they got the answer they were looking for even if it was wrong. Why else would you need witnesses to a phone call about a question of the regs. I think most people that would make a phone call to try to clarify something WDFW would just make the call and then tell their buddies. "Yep, they said it was ok." Or "they said no, let go find another one." or something of the sort. Obviously some planning went into this one.
I provided you the facts of exactly who from the Wdfw gave the all clear to shoot the bull on the phone. I have given details on what was discussed.Really? You actually have no facts or details regarding the "permission call". You state that Mr. Grant "checked into it" and vaguely reference (as in no details of who participated, what was asked, why there was so much confusion) some other call where "permission" was granted. Did Mr. Grant specifically tell you it was legal to kill that bull and to go ahead and shoot it? The very vague "another call was made" leaves a lot of doubt about the validity of your claim that WDFW granted permission...which fits the narrative of why a County prosecutor would file criminal charges...its all bogus. So by all means, clear this up and tell us who specifically authorized/gave permission/confirmed it was legal to kill a branch antlered bull in GMU 334 with the Raffle tag?
I signed up to this forum to hopefully clear things up some. There has been a lot of false information posted on this site. A call was made to the game department asking if it was ok to shoot the bull where it located. After Morgan Grant from the game department checked into it another phone conversation took place and the hunters were told they absolutely could harvest that bull with that tag at that location. If in fact the info given was wrong the game department is the one to be blamed.
I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
I provided you the facts of exactly who from the Wdfw gave the all clear to shoot the bull on the phone. I have given details on what was discussed.Really? You actually have no facts or details regarding the "permission call". You state that Mr. Grant "checked into it" and vaguely reference (as in no details of who participated, what was asked, why there was so much confusion) some other call where "permission" was granted. Did Mr. Grant specifically tell you it was legal to kill that bull and to go ahead and shoot it? The very vague "another call was made" leaves a lot of doubt about the validity of your claim that WDFW granted permission...which fits the narrative of why a County prosecutor would file criminal charges...its all bogus. So by all means, clear this up and tell us who specifically authorized/gave permission/confirmed it was legal to kill a branch antlered bull in GMU 334 with the Raffle tag?I signed up to this forum to hopefully clear things up some. There has been a lot of false information posted on this site. A call was made to the game department asking if it was ok to shoot the bull where it located. After Morgan Grant from the game department checked into it another phone conversation took place and the hunters were told they absolutely could harvest that bull with that tag at that location. If in fact the info given was wrong the game department is the one to be blamed.
Was this hunt done on some kind of special tag, or just over the counter?
Was this hunt done on some kind of special tag, or just over the counter?Do you mean the kitchen counter?
I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?
Is this the same bull that was shot outside Ellensburg?It's probably not been disclosed yet but the bull was shot in a field owned by a Seahawk strong safety. That information will come out later.
If so, I heard that there were several bulls hanging out together in a field.
I think people even got pictures of the bulls.
I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?
And this is how the truth gets twisted. Before I said he knew the restrictions on firearms in that area. And no I am not saying he made a mistake reading the regs. I am saying the call was made to find out the legality for weapons and the unit. A crystal clear answer was given on both notes.
Is this the same bull that was shot outside Ellensburg?
If so, I heard that there were several bulls hanging out together in a field.
I think people even got pictures of the bulls.
I am saying the call was made to find out the legality for weapons and the unit. A crystal clear answer was given on both notes.I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?
I am saying the call was made to find out the legality for weapons and the unit. A crystal clear answer was given on both notes.I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?
Seems the pertinent question would have been to ask if he could kill a branched antler bull in unit 334 with his tag.........but then that would have closed any loopholes right! :dunno:
Kiti was the bull killed the same day as the supposed phone call?
just a question. I wasn't there how would I know. I thought you were here to clear things up.Kiti was the bull killed the same day as the supposed phone call?
Why are you asking questions you know the answer to?
This is still vague and leaving wiggle room.second was what was legal with that tag.I am saying the call was made to find out the legality for weapons and the unit. A crystal clear answer was given on both notes.I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?
Seems the pertinent question would have been to ask if he could kill a branched antler bull in unit 334 with his tag.........but then that would have closed any loopholes right! :dunno:
I get you will never accept that, the truth.I am saying the call was made to find out the legality for weapons and the unit. A crystal clear answer was given on both notes.I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?
Seems the pertinent question would have been to ask if he could kill a branched antler bull in unit 334 with his tag.........but then that would have closed any loopholes right! :dunno:
If he's found guilty I'm positive the masses will say "slap on the wrist". If he's exonerated it's because he bought his way out. Either way nobody's going to be happy.
So basically this thread has the potential to surpass the Bigfoot thread :chuckle:If he's found guilty I'm positive the masses will say "slap on the wrist". If he's exonerated it's because he bought his way out. Either way nobody's going to be happy.
I know one thing. It will be years before this is cleared up. His plea for the 2007 incident was when, 2012? I hope nobody is holding their breath for a conclusion to this one.
Just think, we have until about 2019 to thrash this over and over and over and over....then the post trial/plea commentary!
So basically this thread has the potential to surpass the Bigfoot thread :chuckle:If he's found guilty I'm positive the masses will say "slap on the wrist". If he's exonerated it's because he bought his way out. Either way nobody's going to be happy.
I know one thing. It will be years before this is cleared up. His plea for the 2007 incident was when, 2012? I hope nobody is holding their breath for a conclusion to this one.
Just think, we have until about 2019 to thrash this over and over and over and over....then the post trial/plea commentary!
I told you so!!!
Yes I am sure. Do you need Documentation?The money does not go to conservation. Sorry to break your hearts. Just for fun, find a law you consider confusing, call 2 or 3 wdfw offices and ask them for an answer. I guarantee you will get more than one answer. I have done it many times. Sometimes they even tell me it depends on the game wardens interpretation of the rule whether you will get a ticket or not."
Are you sure the money doesn't go to conservation?
Yes I am sure. Do you need Documentation?The money does not go to conservation. Sorry to break your hearts. Just for fun, find a law you consider confusing, call 2 or 3 wdfw offices and ask them for an answer. I guarantee you will get more than one answer. I have done it many times. Sometimes they even tell me it depends on the game wardens interpretation of the rule whether you will get a ticket or not."
Are you sure the money doesn't go to conservation?
The last couple days seems the BF &TR thread have morphed into one :dunno: :chuckle: :peep: :sry:So basically this thread has the potential to surpass the Bigfoot thread :chuckle:If he's found guilty I'm positive the masses will say "slap on the wrist". If he's exonerated it's because he bought his way out. Either way nobody's going to be happy.
I know one thing. It will be years before this is cleared up. His plea for the 2007 incident was when, 2012? I hope nobody is holding their breath for a conclusion to this one.
Just think, we have until about 2019 to thrash this over and over and over and over....then the post trial/plea commentary!
Blasphemy, outrageous, NEVER!!! >:( >:( >:(
I think the whopping 3 participants on the Bigfoot thread will disagree with you. Then they will sully your name for speaking so negatively about the Bigfoot thread being overcome.
I think if you combine all the threads on this topic, it has already surpassed the BF thread. I'm sure there is a contract out on me right now for saying this.
No way......
This pitiful thread needs another 450 pages to reach epic Big Foot status.
I'll help......
So it sounds like this bull was shot legally, huh?
LOL!!! WOW! WDFW Told me so!! excellent. Now they have more money to catch people without discovery passes. The more money we give, the more the deer and elk will reproduce! Thank you for being a good little sheep in the flock and pointing that out for us.The money does not go to conservation. Sorry to break your hearts. Just for fun, find a law you consider confusing, call 2 or 3 wdfw offices and ask them for an answer. I guarantee you will get more than one answer. I have done it many times. Sometimes they even tell me it depends on the game wardens interpretation of the rule whether you will get a ticket or not."
Are you sure the money doesn't go to conservation?
Yes I am sure. Do you need Documentation?
kiticaashunter,
Where you present when the Bullwinkle Bull was shot?
I have provided more details than anyone else on this issue. I have said all I can at this point. I hope the others that continue to ask me questions read this and stop asking for things I can't tell them. There will be a point this whole thing is over and the truth will be proven.
Anyone who doesn't give hunters the benefit of the doubt is an anti hunter and doesn't belong on a hunting website they should join peta or glow.
Here is something to chew on.....
Several posts have been made stating that as hunters, we all need to support, stand up for, or give the benefit of the doubt to other hunters.
Like this one. (not trying to pick on you WApatriot, yours was easiest to find. Bearpaw has said it too)Anyone who doesn't give hunters the benefit of the doubt is an anti hunter and doesn't belong on a hunting website they should join peta or glow.
I would normally agree with this statement, but when it comes to this elk deal, I have to respectfully disagree and draw the line here.
As a group(hunters) we can not/should not, support very questionable behavior like this Bullwinkle mess.
Hunters as a group have discouraged the practice of displaying their kills on top of their vehicles for all to see. Why? Because it makes ALL hunters look bad to the public and anti-hunting crowd.
We have discouraged; the shooting of a sow with cubs, shooting of fawns & calfs, bloody messy kill photos, shooting ducks on the water, shooting turkeys on the roost, gut piles on the side of the road, extra long shots at animals(esp. archery), etc.
Again why are these things discouraged and looked down upon from our own group? They are all perfectly legal.
Why???? Because they are unethical, unsportsman like, and make ALL hunters look bad.
So why should the actions of the Bullwinkle crew be any different?
Irregardless of whether or not permission to shoot was granted, it should have never happened. As JD has said multiple times, How could TR's group of "hunters" ever think this would end well? Shooting a tame, well known & photographed bull elk that lived in a farmers field was a very dumb thing to do.
I personally can not support, or give the benefit of the doubt, to ANYONE who would do such a thing and call it hunting. Nothing but greed working on this "Hunt"
Is this the same bull that was shot outside Ellensburg?It's probably not been disclosed yet but the bull was shot in a field owned by a Seahawk strong safety. That information will come out later.
If so, I heard that there were several bulls hanging out together in a field.
I think people even got pictures of the bulls.
LOL!!! WOW! WDFW Told me so!! excellent. Now they have more money to catch people without discovery passes. The more money we give, the more the deer and elk will reproduce! Thank you for being a good little sheep in the flock and pointing that out for us.The money does not go to conservation. Sorry to break your hearts. Just for fun, find a law you consider confusing, call 2 or 3 wdfw offices and ask them for an answer. I guarantee you will get more than one answer. I have done it many times. Sometimes they even tell me it depends on the game wardens interpretation of the rule whether you will get a ticket or not."
Are you sure the money doesn't go to conservation?
Yes I am sure. Do you need Documentation?
LOL!!! WOW! WDFW Told me so!! excellent. Now they have more money to catch people without discovery passes. The more money we give, the more the deer and elk will reproduce! Thank you for being a good little sheep in the flock and pointing that out for us.The money does not go to conservation. Sorry to break your hearts. Just for fun, find a law you consider confusing, call 2 or 3 wdfw offices and ask them for an answer. I guarantee you will get more than one answer. I have done it many times. Sometimes they even tell me it depends on the game wardens interpretation of the rule whether you will get a ticket or not."
Are you sure the money doesn't go to conservation?
Yes I am sure. Do you need Documentation?
Lol, so if you are so sure....where is the documentation you promised?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If he's found guilty I'm positive the masses will say "slap on the wrist". If he's exonerated it's because he bought his way out. Either way nobody's going to be happy.It got investigated and actually looked at by a prosecutor. I think most are happy it got that far.
So is it a Federal offense to shoot an elk south of the canal?
I agree with popes post a few pages back. I know one of the guys that is saying TR is guilty and should get the book thrown at him broke the law if scouting for game from a plane is illegal. Yet he is acting holier then thou in this thread. I would bet others have broke the law also in this thread.
Then you have a guy in this thread posting pics I highly doubt he has permission to post. Yet in other threads when it's his buddies pics that get posted he spouts off about how people should respect other people and not post pics if they aren't yours.
I believe both of those are the definition of hypocrisy.
Maybe TR knew the unit was closed and called to ask why? Maybe the game department said he could kill a bull there. If I got the ok to kill something in the Water Shed from the game department I would if there was something in there I wanted to kill.
What's the rule in Washington about picking up dead heads? Against the law correct? I know a guy that has picked up two big bulls that the game department said he could. So what's the difference between that, and shooting a bull in a closed unit if the game department actually did give permission?
I don't really care if TR is found guilty or not. Him shooting a bull there saves a bull in a unit I might actually get to hunt. But the hypocrisy in this thread is pretty bad. Carry on though and keep acting like angels.
I know of this case only what I have read on this site and a few very slanted news articles.
I know of this case only what I have read on this site and a few very slanted news articles.
i wonder how many of those news articles (or folks on here for that matter) will volunteer an appolagy if hes found innocent? still havnet seen any thing in print (news paper or hunting forum) recanting the "killed it in one GMU snuck it to another story" and that was a sure thing slam dunk iron clad aspect of this story too. according to all the experts...
from the Yakima herald. and then blasted on the first half of this thread. i guess it doesnt say "snuck" your right. no implied meaning here, transporting game to another location to proccess it isnt standard practice for every hunter ever...
"After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed"
from the Yakima herald. and then blasted on the first half of this thread. i guess it doesnt say "snuck" your right. no implied meaning here, transporting game to another location to proccess it isnt standard practice for every hunter ever...
"After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed"
That is exactly what happened, pretty much to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you implying that's not what happened?
For the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them doing this. The farmer probably didn't want a gutpile in the middle of his field.
no doubt the bull was proccessed off site. i cant count how many animals ive shot,then put in my truck, driven somewhere else and proccesd them. pretty standard practice or do you guys just eat the whole thing right there. the way the story was told/written was this was done in an attemt to decieve. who are you trying to fool when you hang a deer in your garage? slander is slander even if you dont like the guy
from the Yakima herald. and then blasted on the first half of this thread. i guess it doesnt say "snuck" your right. no implied meaning here, transporting game to another location to proccess it isnt standard practice for every hunter ever...
"After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed"
That is exactly what happened, pretty much to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you implying that's not what happened?
For the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them doing this. The farmer probably didn't want a gutpile in the middle of his field.
you really dont want to see what the implied meaning is of this statement in he paper is huh? your not really that naive are you? like i said slander is slander.
WA doesn't award punitive damages. An award for slander would be granted only for a proven documentable financial loss.Either way, it's not slander.
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
The 24hourcampfire thread is hilarious! Started by none other than a JDHasty and he made most of the posts in the 5 page tread. Most of the rest of the posts were people bashing JDHasty. Funny thing about the ifish thread, yep JDHasty is there as well.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4099641#Post4099641
Here is yet another one all the way across the country in Pennsylvania, anyone want to make any bets on who started that one? Yet again it was JDHasty........
So after Cboom (who impresses me as none other than kiticaashunter alter ego) stalked me all over this site for the better part of a month.... After I had left the prior thread alone for north of a couple weeks.... After I had been called out for a second time.... you better believe I responded.
Hope you enjoyed it, you have asked for every bit of what I have posted.
And as for the Pennsylvania sites, I bought a scope form a woodchuck hunter and he invited me to join a site he and other chuck hunters post on. They pointed me toward the fact that Todd Reichert of Salkum WA has been the primary subject of a heck of a lot of controversy in their State. They invited me over to the other sites they post on. I bet TR sure wishes you had let sleeping dogs lie.
Sorry to disappoint you but no alter egos here. You sure seem to put yourself out there as a guy that doesn't like to see the rules broken. I have an honest question, have you ever been sited for breaking any game laws?
from the Yakima herald. and then blasted on the first half of this thread. i guess it doesnt say "snuck" your right. no implied meaning here, transporting game to another location to proccess it isnt standard practice for every hunter ever...
"After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed"
That is exactly what happened, pretty much to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you implying that's not what happened?
For the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them doing this. The farmer probably didn't want a gutpile in the middle of his field.
you really dont want to see what the implied meaning is of this statement in he paper is huh? your not really that naive are you? like i said slander is slander.
Well if you think that's slander, I'm not sure what to tell you. Implied or not, the bull was picked up whole, ungutted, and taken to another person's home/shop for processing. That has been established. I'm not sure how putting into type exactly what happened is slanderous.
Maybe it's a conspiracy.
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
The 24hourcampfire thread is hilarious! Started by none other than a JDHasty and he made most of the posts in the 5 page tread. Most of the rest of the posts were people bashing JDHasty. Funny thing about the ifish thread, yep JDHasty is there as well.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4099641#Post4099641
Here is yet another one all the way across the country in Pennsylvania, anyone want to make any bets on who started that one? Yet again it was JDHasty........
So after Cboom (who impresses me as none other than kiticaashunter alter ego) stalked me all over this site for the better part of a month.... After I had left the prior thread alone for north of a couple weeks.... After I had been called out for a second time.... you better believe I responded.
Hope you enjoyed it, you have asked for every bit of what I have posted.
And as for the Pennsylvania sites, I bought a scope form a woodchuck hunter and he invited me to join a site he and other chuck hunters post on. They pointed me toward the fact that Todd Reichert of Salkum WA has been the primary subject of a heck of a lot of controversy in their State. They invited me over to the other sites they post on. I bet TR sure wishes you had let sleeping dogs lie.
Sorry to disappoint you but no alter egos here. You sure seem to put yourself out there as a guy that doesn't like to see the rules broken. I have an honest question, have you ever been sited for breaking any game laws?
Come on jd answer the simple question
from the Yakima herald. and then blasted on the first half of this thread. i guess it doesnt say "snuck" your right. no implied meaning here, transporting game to another location to proccess it isnt standard practice for every hunter ever...
"After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed"
That is exactly what happened, pretty much to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you implying that's not what happened?
For the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them doing this. The farmer probably didn't want a gutpile in the middle of his field.
you really dont want to see what the implied meaning is of this statement in he paper is huh? your not really that naive are you? like i said slander is slander.
Well if you think that's slander, I'm not sure what to tell you. Implied or not, the bull was picked up whole, ungutted, and taken to another person's home/shop for processing. That has been established. I'm not sure how putting into type exactly what happened is slanderous.
Maybe it's a conspiracy.
i guess that answers the second quistion in my sentance there. fair enough
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
The 24hourcampfire thread is hilarious! Started by none other than a JDHasty and he made most of the posts in the 5 page tread. Most of the rest of the posts were people bashing JDHasty. Funny thing about the ifish thread, yep JDHasty is there as well.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4099641#Post4099641
Here is yet another one all the way across the country in Pennsylvania, anyone want to make any bets on who started that one? Yet again it was JDHasty........
So after Cboom (who impresses me as none other than kiticaashunter alter ego) stalked me all over this site for the better part of a month.... After I had left the prior thread alone for north of a couple weeks.... After I had been called out for a second time.... you better believe I responded.
Hope you enjoyed it, you have asked for every bit of what I have posted.
And as for the Pennsylvania sites, I bought a scope form a woodchuck hunter and he invited me to join a site he and other chuck hunters post on. They pointed me toward the fact that Todd Reichert of Salkum WA has been the primary subject of a heck of a lot of controversy in their State. They invited me over to the other sites they post on. I bet TR sure wishes you had let sleeping dogs lie.
Sorry to disappoint you but no alter egos here. You sure seem to put yourself out there as a guy that doesn't like to see the rules broken. I have an honest question, have you ever been sited for breaking any game laws?
Come on jd answer the simple questionfrom the Yakima herald. and then blasted on the first half of this thread. i guess it doesnt say "snuck" your right. no implied meaning here, transporting game to another location to proccess it isnt standard practice for every hunter ever...
"After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed"
That is exactly what happened, pretty much to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you implying that's not what happened?
For the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them doing this. The farmer probably didn't want a gutpile in the middle of his field.
you really dont want to see what the implied meaning is of this statement in he paper is huh? your not really that naive are you? like i said slander is slander.
Well if you think that's slander, I'm not sure what to tell you. Implied or not, the bull was picked up whole, ungutted, and taken to another person's home/shop for processing. That has been established. I'm not sure how putting into type exactly what happened is slanderous.
Maybe it's a conspiracy.
i guess that answers the second quistion in my sentance there. fair enough
:chuckle:
This is still vague and leaving wiggle room.second was what was legal with that tag.I am saying the call was made to find out the legality for weapons and the unit. A crystal clear answer was given on both notes.I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?
Seems the pertinent question would have been to ask if he could kill a branched antler bull in unit 334 with his tag.........but then that would have closed any loopholes right! :dunno:
Are you stating that Mr Grant was asked directly if a branched antler bull could be killed with that tag in unit 334, yes or no?
And he gave authorization to kill a branched antler bull in 334, yes or no?
Sounds like what Trey Gowdy is going through.....This is still vague and leaving wiggle room.second was what was legal with that tag.I am saying the call was made to find out the legality for weapons and the unit. A crystal clear answer was given on both notes.I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?
Seems the pertinent question would have been to ask if he could kill a branched antler bull in unit 334 with his tag.........but then that would have closed any loopholes right! :dunno:
Are you stating that Mr Grant was asked directly if a branched antler bull could be killed with that tag in unit 334, yes or no?
And he gave authorization to kill a branched antler bull in 334, yes or no?
Come on Kiti answer the simple questions. :chuckle:p
:yeah:from the Yakima herald. and then blasted on the first half of this thread. i guess it doesnt say "snuck" your right. no implied meaning here, transporting game to another location to proccess it isnt standard practice for every hunter ever...
"After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed"
That is exactly what happened, pretty much to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you implying that's not what happened?
For the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them doing this. The farmer probably didn't want a gutpile in the middle of his field.
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
The 24hourcampfire thread is hilarious! Started by none other than a JDHasty and he made most of the posts in the 5 page tread. Most of the rest of the posts were people bashing JDHasty. Funny thing about the ifish thread, yep JDHasty is there as well.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4099641#Post4099641
Here is yet another one all the way across the country in Pennsylvania, anyone want to make any bets on who started that one? Yet again it was JDHasty........
So after Cboom (who impresses me as none other than kiticaashunter alter ego) stalked me all over this site for the better part of a month.... After I had left the prior thread alone for north of a couple weeks.... After I had been called out for a second time.... you better believe I responded.
Hope you enjoyed it, you have asked for every bit of what I have posted.
And as for the Pennsylvania sites, I bought a scope form a woodchuck hunter and he invited me to join a site he and other chuck hunters post on. They pointed me toward the fact that Todd Reichert of Salkum WA has been the primary subject of a heck of a lot of controversy in their State. They invited me over to the other sites they post on. I bet TR sure wishes you had let sleeping dogs lie.
Sorry to disappoint you but no alter egos here. You sure seem to put yourself out there as a guy that doesn't like to see the rules broken. I have an honest question, have you ever been sited for breaking any game laws?
Come on jd answer the simple questionfrom the Yakima herald. and then blasted on the first half of this thread. i guess it doesnt say "snuck" your right. no implied meaning here, transporting game to another location to proccess it isnt standard practice for every hunter ever...
"After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed"
That is exactly what happened, pretty much to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you implying that's not what happened?
For the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them doing this. The farmer probably didn't want a gutpile in the middle of his field.
you really dont want to see what the implied meaning is of this statement in he paper is huh? your not really that naive are you? like i said slander is slander.
Well if you think that's slander, I'm not sure what to tell you. Implied or not, the bull was picked up whole, ungutted, and taken to another person's home/shop for processing. That has been established. I'm not sure how putting into type exactly what happened is slanderous.
Maybe it's a conspiracy.
i guess that answers the second quistion in my sentance there. fair enough
:chuckle:
Something funny? Do you have more details on JDHastys poaching?
ok, now in full context for those of you who havnt read it in a while. yeah, no implications here...
But according to enforcement officials, Reichert shot the elk in a field near the intersection of Gilbert and Grindrod roads. That location is in the Ellensburg game management unit (GMU 334), roughly 11/4 miles south of the irrigation canal separating that unit from the Naneum 328 unit.
Hunting of branch-antler elk is legal in the 328, while the 334 is open only for spike-only or antlerless elk — even for holders of special any-bull permits, say state Fish and Wildlife officials.
After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
The 24hourcampfire thread is hilarious! Started by none other than a JDHasty and he made most of the posts in the 5 page tread. Most of the rest of the posts were people bashing JDHasty. Funny thing about the ifish thread, yep JDHasty is there as well.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4099641#Post4099641
Here is yet another one all the way across the country in Pennsylvania, anyone want to make any bets on who started that one? Yet again it was JDHasty........
So after Cboom (who impresses me as none other than kiticaashunter alter ego) stalked me all over this site for the better part of a month.... After I had left the prior thread alone for north of a couple weeks.... After I had been called out for a second time.... you better believe I responded.
Hope you enjoyed it, you have asked for every bit of what I have posted.
And as for the Pennsylvania sites, I bought a scope form a woodchuck hunter and he invited me to join a site he and other chuck hunters post on. They pointed me toward the fact that Todd Reichert of Salkum WA has been the primary subject of a heck of a lot of controversy in their State. They invited me over to the other sites they post on. I bet TR sure wishes you had let sleeping dogs lie.
Sorry to disappoint you but no alter egos here. You sure seem to put yourself out there as a guy that doesn't like to see the rules broken. I have an honest question, have you ever been sited for breaking any game laws?
Come on jd answer the simple questionfrom the Yakima herald. and then blasted on the first half of this thread. i guess it doesnt say "snuck" your right. no implied meaning here, transporting game to another location to proccess it isnt standard practice for every hunter ever...
"After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed"
That is exactly what happened, pretty much to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you implying that's not what happened?
For the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them doing this. The farmer probably didn't want a gutpile in the middle of his field.
you really dont want to see what the implied meaning is of this statement in he paper is huh? your not really that naive are you? like i said slander is slander.
Well if you think that's slander, I'm not sure what to tell you. Implied or not, the bull was picked up whole, ungutted, and taken to another person's home/shop for processing. That has been established. I'm not sure how putting into type exactly what happened is slanderous.
Maybe it's a conspiracy.
i guess that answers the second quistion in my sentance there. fair enough
:chuckle:
Something funny? Do you have more details on JDHastys poaching?
I was chuckling regarding the comments from lord grizzly about the slander in the news article(or lack thereof).
I don't know that JD's record has anything to do with it. If I'm busted for speeding, I want the law applied to everyone.
The only game ticket I've ever got was when I was 15 I got a ticked for hunting ducks on Jan 2nd and hadn't purchased the next years license. Does that make it wrong for me to take a stand against law breaking and poaching?
Several pages here:I can see trying to defend a friend, or whatever. But come on...from the outside looking in, this does not look like a simple mistake, an oversight, or anything that could possibly be legitimized with a phone call.What other sites is this being discussed on. I wanna see other train wrecks
And compared to the several other websites I have seen this issue addressed, the discussion here has been calm and civilized.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11165637/Re:_Charges_Filed!!!__-_2015_W)
In the comments, if you haven't seen this:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/hunter-facing-charges-after-death-of-beloved-elk-named-bullwinkle/article_844ec8ac-1a65-11e6-8639-53981ae0fc80.html)
A bit here; nothing new:
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=1243914)
Letter to the editor, and comments:
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html (http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html)
Hard to imagine a 'win', regardless of what the court decides.
The 24hourcampfire thread is hilarious! Started by none other than a JDHasty and he made most of the posts in the 5 page tread. Most of the rest of the posts were people bashing JDHasty. Funny thing about the ifish thread, yep JDHasty is there as well.
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4099641#Post4099641
Here is yet another one all the way across the country in Pennsylvania, anyone want to make any bets on who started that one? Yet again it was JDHasty........
So after Cboom (who impresses me as none other than kiticaashunter alter ego) stalked me all over this site for the better part of a month.... After I had left the prior thread alone for north of a couple weeks.... After I had been called out for a second time.... you better believe I responded.
Hope you enjoyed it, you have asked for every bit of what I have posted.
And as for the Pennsylvania sites, I bought a scope form a woodchuck hunter and he invited me to join a site he and other chuck hunters post on. They pointed me toward the fact that Todd Reichert of Salkum WA has been the primary subject of a heck of a lot of controversy in their State. They invited me over to the other sites they post on. I bet TR sure wishes you had let sleeping dogs lie.
Sorry to disappoint you but no alter egos here. You sure seem to put yourself out there as a guy that doesn't like to see the rules broken. I have an honest question, have you ever been sited for breaking any game laws?
Come on jd answer the simple questionfrom the Yakima herald. and then blasted on the first half of this thread. i guess it doesnt say "snuck" your right. no implied meaning here, transporting game to another location to proccess it isnt standard practice for every hunter ever...
"After shooting the elk, Reichert and a small group of Ellensburg residents who had helped him locate the bull loaded it into a truck. According to eyewitnesses, the elk was then driven to a private field in the 328 unit and field-dressed"
That is exactly what happened, pretty much to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you implying that's not what happened?
For the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them doing this. The farmer probably didn't want a gutpile in the middle of his field.
you really dont want to see what the implied meaning is of this statement in he paper is huh? your not really that naive are you? like i said slander is slander.
Well if you think that's slander, I'm not sure what to tell you. Implied or not, the bull was picked up whole, ungutted, and taken to another person's home/shop for processing. That has been established. I'm not sure how putting into type exactly what happened is slanderous.
Maybe it's a conspiracy.
i guess that answers the second quistion in my sentance there. fair enough
:chuckle:
Something funny? Do you have more details on JDHastys poaching?
I was chuckling regarding the comments from lord grizzly about the slander in the news article(or lack thereof).
still think that huh?
I don't know that JD's record has anything to do with it. If I'm busted for speeding, I want the law applied to everyone.It sounds like maybe yes, if you have broken the law you can't speak out against anyone else breaking the law.
The only game ticket I've ever got was when I was 15 I got a ticked for hunting ducks on Jan 2nd and hadn't purchased the next years license. Does that make it wrong for me to take a stand against law breaking and poaching?
So then, no answer for which unit was used on the harvest report?:dunno:
Forum Rules & Policies
This forum is intended to be a family friendly and helpful venue for hunters, fishers, trappers, and other sportsmen. Unauthorized advertising is not allowed, contact forum management for available advertising opportunities. Forum management reserves the right to remove any member who violates the forum rules/policies or who in their opinion is actively working against the common interests of hunters or other sportsmen. This is a privately owned site with the following rules and policies:
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, name calling, belittling, threatening, negativity in success topics, unproven accusations, obscene, profanity or intended profanity, sexually oriented, adult material, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of any International, State, or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. You further agree that you are granting Hunting-Washington perpetual unrestricted use of your material. Spam, flooding, unauthorized advertising, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are not allowed on this forum.
Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of material. Please remember that we do not actively monitor all posted material, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, authenticity, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted material expresses the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that posted material or a private message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to edit or remove any content, if they determine that removal is needed it is a manual process so removal or editing may not occur immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.
You remain solely responsible for the content that you post. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint, legal, or lawful action arising from your use of this forum.
You have the ability, as you register, to choose a username under which you may post your material, only appropriate usernames will be allowed. You may only have one username and any change to your username requires preapproval by an administrator. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason. We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.
After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile and post content on the forum. It is your responsibility to present acceptable information and material. Your IP address is recorded and may be used in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted due to a major violation of this agreement.
Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.
All forum rules and policies are subject to administrative discretion and may be changed without notice at any time.
Thank You,
Forum Management Team
So then, no answer for which unit was used on the harvest report?:dunno:
Now, my intentions are to leave this topic alone for a while.
This is still vague and leaving wiggle room.second was what was legal with that tag.I am saying the call was made to find out the legality for weapons and the unit. A crystal clear answer was given on both notes.I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching it himself?If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...
Do you read the regs?
So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?
Seems the pertinent question would have been to ask if he could kill a branched antler bull in unit 334 with his tag.........but then that would have closed any loopholes right! :dunno:
Are you stating that Mr Grant was asked directly if a branched antler bull could be killed with that tag in unit 334, yes or no?
And he gave authorization to kill a branched antler bull in 334, yes or no?
Come on Kiti answer the simple questions. :chuckle:
Apparently he then drove the bull’s carcass to a legal hunting area in order to tag and field dress it.The story gets juicier by the day. I wonder if they ran over a litter of puppies on the way to the other field?
That caught my eye as well, I don't remember seeing that before. Maybe new stuff will be coming out. Now I am kind of curious to know what unit they reported it was killed in. Too bad the tags aren't like a salmon punch card where you have to write down the area you are upon harvest.QuoteApparently he then drove the bull’s carcass to a legal hunting area in order to tag and field dress it.The story gets juicier by the day. I wonder if they ran over a litter of puppies on the way to the other field?
That caught my eye as well, I don't remember seeing that before. Maybe new stuff will be coming out. Now I am kind of curious to know what unit they reported it was killed in. Too bad the tags aren't like a salmon punch card where you have to write down the area you are upon harvest.QuoteApparently he then drove the bulls carcass to a legal hunting area in order to tag and field dress it.The story gets juicier by the day. I wonder if they ran over a litter of puppies on the way to the other field?
Yes, the field dress part of it. First about the didn't tag it immediately. So according to this article, they didn't even tag it until they were in the other field.
Yes, the field dress part of it. First about the didn't tag it immediately. So according to this article, they didn't even tag it until they were in the other field.:yeah: I would love to know if that is true. I wish the tags were like a salmon punch card where upon harvest you have to mark down what it is you harvested and what marine area.
Just a question: On page 51 of the 2016 regs (I know this is this years so it may not apply) GMU 334 is listed under early archery as a spike only unit (not a TRUE SPIKE only). Would this constitute that it is open for branch antlered bulls as you could potentially shoot a 6x1? Would this then make the tag legal? Obviously ethically this situation is insane but legally I'm curious?A 6x1 is a spike, but not a true spike. A 6x1 could be considered a branch antlered bull. GMU 334 has different requirements for modern firearm and archery seasons.
I also see that on page 49 GMU 334 is listed as True Spike only? Just wondering if this is a typo or what?
I know if you look at the 2015 harvest report it shows nothing but spike bulls being taken out of 334.:yike: Maybe he reported late and is going to pay the additional fee for not reporting when he gets his 2016 license. That will teach him. :chuckle:
One new thing that I caught was in one of the lasts posts that got nuked,Even now that it has happened I still struggle with "what would I do" in this situation. There is a lot to think about. I would like to say I would have steered clear of this bull but I just don't know. I don't think you can know until the decision is right in front of you.
The individual was comparing the actions of a member who received a ticket on Jan 2 because he inadvertently forgot to buy his new license for that year. It was stated that it was a simple mistake and compared it to Bullwinkle's killing as a mistake. All along it was claimed that TR had permission from WDFW to shoot.......now it was referenced as a mistake. :dunno: Interesting
Again, Regardless of ANY of the "He said/She said", legal or not, permission granted or not, understanding the regs. or not, jealous or not, hypocrite or not, spike or branched bull or not...........One simple thing should have really decided this crews choice of whether or not to shoot this bull....
Is this the right thing to do as a hunter? (Or a person that calls themselves a hunter)
This case has a few small similarities to something that affected myself 1.5 years ago. By all standard reasoning I should be agreeing with the pro TR guys. I too did not understand a part of the regs. (Who may apply for any moose/sheep) so I called WDFW 3 times and received wrong info all 3 times) So I went with their info and then lost an opportunity for a year. Sure I complained a bit on here, and took some heat on here as well, but I did the right thing. I used my talents & brain, made some calls and wrote some letters to Olympia. End result....I was successful in having the confusing language changed in the 2016 regs. This benefits ALL hunters.
So, regardless of all the legalities, Did Mr. Reichert do the right thing by shooting this particular bull, in this particular scenario?
I understand that Bob, my question is since it is open during early archery season for Spikes, not True Spikes (which could be a branch antlered bull on one side) does that open the unit up for the raffle tag to shoot a branch antlered bull as it is "technically" open to branch antlered bull hunting and not only "True Spikes"?
I understand that Bob, my question is since it is open during early archery season for Spikes, not True Spikes (which could be a branch antlered bull on one side) does that open the unit up for the raffle tag to shoot a branch antlered bull as it is "technically" open to branch antlered bull hunting and not only "True Spikes"?
Agree Colville, Its the only thing I could think of as to why anyone would even think there was any chance of this being legal. I'm definitely not trying to justify just trying to figure out if there is any way someone could "legally" spin this in a way that could justify the action or in the very least justify making the initial phone calls.greed is a funny thing!
Why are you guys so upset over a legally taken elk?:chuckle: Never mind those pesky criminal charges filed by a County Prosecutor.
Why are you guys so upset over a legally taken elk?:chuckle: Never mind those pesky criminal charges filed by a County Prosecutor.
Agree Colville, Its the only thing I could think of as to why anyone would even think there was any chance of this being legal. I'm definitely not trying to justify just trying to figure out if there is any way someone could "legally" spin this in a way that could justify the action or in the very least justify making the initial phone calls.
Agree Colville, Its the only thing I could think of as to why anyone would even think there was any chance of this being legal. I'm definitely not trying to justify just trying to figure out if there is any way someone could "legally" spin this in a way that could justify the action or in the very least justify making the initial phone calls.
Let's not forget guys, the experts or "guys in the know" stated that "2 phone calls" were not in regards to spike or no spike, they were in regards to weapon use. :twocents:
Kiti can't seem to answer the relevant questions.
Yep, you're right.What is that? :dunno:
No need for an actual court of law when you've got the Hunt Washington posse saddled up and ready to ride.
Who needs due process when you can just decide on the internet.
Yep, you're right.Does not expressing an opinion also work with, say, football players? ;)
No need for an actual court of law when you've got the Hunt Washington posse saddled up and ready to ride.
Who needs due process when you can just decide on the internet.
You got me there, Bob. :)First degree suckage. Book 'em, Danno. :chuckle:
But, in my defense,....... Kam sucks!
(and on a slightly more serious note, I never said he committed a crime. There are guys on here egging each other on about his supposed guilt, and they back it up by saying things like " he could come on here and defend himself."
I don't know the guy from Adam, but I hate internet kangaroo courts where someone went to school with the neighbor of a guy that sold a car to a relative of someone who heard the "real story".
P.s. Kam sucks. 8)
An Internet forum does not decide guilt or innocence, impose legal punishments, fines etc. You guys whining make it sound like people are not allowed to discuss, comment, provide opinions, theories, or perspectives until the entire matter has been fully adjudicated. Get real. Oh and here's a tip...dont do shady, unethical, or illegal things and you won't likely be the source of public criticism :tup:Yep, you're right.What is that? :dunno:
No need for an actual court of law when you've got the Hunt Washington posse saddled up and ready to ride.
Who needs due process when you can just decide on the internet.
Well then, by all means carry on with sentencing.I think North Korea has a model of public criticism and media coverage that would suit you well. Perhaps you should move there. :chuckle: This freedom of expression in the good ol USA just isn't your thing.
Kind of like freedom of expression..... i'm just not into internet bullying.
But you go right on opining about this issue. Don't let lack of facts slow you down one bit.
If you weren't there, how do you know Elvis wasnt?
and how do you know I wasn't, Dan-o? You weren't there, remember? :dunno:
"Clear evidence"? Sooooo...Where do I go to find that on this thread?
You got me there, Bob. :)
But, in my defense,....... Kam sucks!
(and on a slightly more serious note, I never said he committed a crime. There are guys on here egging each other on about his supposed guilt, and they back it up by saying things like " he could come on here and defend himself."
I don't know the guy from Adam, but I hate internet kangaroo courts where someone went to school with the neighbor of a guy that sold a car to a relative of someone who heard the "real story".
P.s. Kam sucks. 8)
and how do you know I wasn't, Dan-o? You weren't there, remember? :dunno:
You are correct.
I heard that you were the guide.
Can you enlighten us on how the calls went?
You got me there, Bob. :)
But, in my defense,....... Kam sucks!
(and on a slightly more serious note, I never said he committed a crime. There are guys on here egging each other on about his supposed guilt, and they back it up by saying things like " he could come on here and defend himself."
I don't know the guy from Adam, but I hate internet kangaroo courts where someone went to school with the neighbor of a guy that sold a car to a relative of someone who heard the "real story".
P.s. Kam sucks. 8)
For a guy who hates all this :yeah:
You sure are posting a lot here, and giving your opinion as well. :twocents: :twocents: :dunno: just sayin not trying to pick on ya :hello:
Sounds like speculation to me. If I'm half white, half Indian (feather, not dot), half Filipino, and half other, how responsible am I for this atrocity? Also, which box do I check?
East Indian/ coastal native
Sounds like speculation to me. If I'm half white, half Indian (feather, not dot), half Filipino, and half other, how responsible am I for this atrocity? Also, which box do I check?All depends what you're applying for.
At least no one is questioning my math.
I say we start a new rumor.
Let's see how far we can go with this one:
Bullwinkle was a transgendered bull, because he "felt" like a cow. He was only shot as a result of a heinous Euro-centric micro-agression.
Worse yet, he was shot in his "safe place".
If you are a white male, you are fully responsible for this atrocity and owe reparations.
An Internet forum does not decide guilt or innocence, impose legal punishments, fines etc. You guys whining make it sound like people are not allowed to discuss, comment, provide opinions, theories, or perspectives until the entire matter has been fully adjudicated. Get real. Oh and here's a tip...dont do shady, unethical, or illegal things and you won't likely be the source of public criticism :tup:Yep, you're right.What is that? :dunno:
No need for an actual court of law when you've got the Hunt Washington posse saddled up and ready to ride.
Who needs due process when you can just decide on the internet.
I say we start a new rumor.
Let's see how far we can go with this one:
Bullwinkle was a transgendered bull, because he "felt" like a cow. He was only shot as a result of a heinous Euro-centric micro-agression.
Worse yet, he was shot in his "safe place".
If you are a white male, you are fully responsible for this atrocity and owe reparations.
I say let's not let this atrocity stand!!!!!!!!!
OCCUPY KITTITAS!!!!!!!!!
There really is no other explanation for it than extreme jealousy.Are you the judge and jury about that, or just the judge?
There really is no other explanation for it than extreme jealousy.Are you the judge and jury about that, or just the judge?
There really is no other explanation for it than extreme jealousy.Are you the judge and jury about that, or just the judge?
There really is no other explanation for it than extreme jealousy.Are you the judge and jury about that, or just the judge?
There really is no other explanation for it than extreme jealousy.Are you the judge and jury about that, or just the judge?
Nope, just pointing out the odvioise. I understand you folks from King County see things differently.
There really is no other explanation for it than extreme jealousy.Are you the judge and jury about that, or just the judge?
Nope, just pointing out the odvioise. I understand you folks from King County see things differently.
I kind of want to know what an odvioise is, but then I am from King County.......
An Internet forum does not decide guilt or innocence, impose legal punishments, fines etc. You guys whining make it sound like people are not allowed to discuss, comment, provide opinions, theories, or perspectives until the entire matter has been fully adjudicated. Get real. Oh and here's a tip...dont do shady, unethical, or illegal things and you won't likely be the source of public criticism :tup:Yep, you're right.What is that? :dunno:
No need for an actual court of law when you've got the Hunt Washington posse saddled up and ready to ride.
Who needs due process when you can just decide on the internet.
I don't think there has been a person on here that has a problem with an honest discussion. The issue is the people that think they can be the judge, jury, and excutioner behind a keyboard without having a clue of what actually happened. The hunting community in this state is in sad shape if this board is a representation of them as a whole. As far as your comment about not doing unethical or shady things if you want to stay out of the public eye, that is true at times. But how has that worked out for the thousands of people that have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit? Very sad you and others here are so quick to jump on a witchhunt. There really is no other explanation for it than extreme jealousy.
I say we start a new rumor.
Let's see how far we can go with this one:
Bullwinkle was a transgendered bull, because he "felt" like a cow. He was only shot as a result of a heinous Euro-centric micro-agression.
Worse yet, he was shot in his "safe place".
If you are a white male, you are fully responsible for this atrocity and owe reparations.
I say let's not let this atrocity stand!!!!!!!!!
OCCUPY KITTITAS!!!!!!!!!
I really don't know what to say to that :o. But now that it seems to all be a free for all and I find my self in in the dreaded situation I need to take a seat in a public place, I may just realize I woke up a woman that morning if the men's room smells to bad....
At least no one is questioning my math.So, with that kind of math....50% is really 100%. :chuckle:
An Internet forum does not decide guilt or innocence, impose legal punishments, fines etc. You guys whining make it sound like people are not allowed to discuss, comment, provide opinions, theories, or perspectives until the entire matter has been fully adjudicated. Get real. Oh and here's a tip...dont do shady, unethical, or illegal things and you won't likely be the source of public criticism :tup:Yep, you're right.What is that? :dunno:
No need for an actual court of law when you've got the Hunt Washington posse saddled up and ready to ride.
Who needs due process when you can just decide on the internet.
I don't think there has been a person on here that has a problem with an honest discussion. The issue is the people that think they can be the judge, jury, and excutioner behind a keyboard without having a clue of what actually happened. The hunting community in this state is in sad shape if this board is a representation of them as a whole. As far as your comment about not doing unethical or shady things if you want to stay out of the public eye, that is true at times. But how has that worked out for the thousands of people that have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit? Very sad you and others here are so quick to jump on a witchhunt. There really is no other explanation for it than extreme jealousy.
Nobody on here is or has suggested they are judge or jury. Nor has anyone suggested they have some right or ability to legally punish Reichert. But a whole bunch of folks on both sides have provided a lot of commentary because of interest in this topic...which you and others don't really like...well tough...and thank goodness Dale straightened everyone out on this stupid lawsuit threat bs. :tup:
Now, if you want to cry about wrongful convictions...maybe you should evaluate your buddy...Convicted liar, convicted poacher...he even admitted so by pleading guilty. In the pending case he will get a fair trial and he will be well represented I'm sure by very competent lawyers, i would hope for nothing less. But please, tell me how this is representative of someone wrongfully convicted? Not to mention, much of the scorn he is receiving is the result of his previous illegal actions.
And if you think hunters in this state, if the HW members are representative, suggest we are a 'sad' group collectively...I don't know what to tell you. I see a bunch of hunters looking out for the future of hunting by making sure we hold ourselves to some standards...such as obeying the law.
Last, I chuckle at these jealousy statements. You are out of your mind if you think I'm jealous of Reichert. I wouldn't trade places with him for anything. Guys like you probably can't comprehend this, but my integrity and respect are worth a lot more to me than a trophy bull or a bunch of money. I bet I sleep a lot better at night as well...it's obvious shining a light on these criminal charges is really bothering him and his accomplices...must suck to be the butt of jokes to every hunter in the state. :chuckle:
I can't remember the answer to this one: If Morgan Grant said it was okay for TR to shoot a branch bull in 334, why would wdfw investigate and recommend the county prosecute? Or did they not recommend prosecution?
Seems like the county would be wasting time and money by prosecution if the state official did in fact give the go ahead (even though he may not have technically had the authority).
???
"Guys like you"...that's presumptuous. Border line micro aggression. Probably qualifies as a safe space violation.
I can't remember the answer to this one: If Morgan Grant said it was okay for TR to shoot a branch bull in 334, why would wdfw investigate and recommend the county prosecute? Or did they not recommend prosecution?
Seems like the county would be wasting time and money by prosecution if the state official did in fact give the go ahead (even though he may not have technically had the authority).
???
If you can find any evidence that WDFW recommended prosecution I would love to see it. That would be news to me.
Agree Colville, Its the only thing I could think of as to why anyone would even think there was any chance of this being legal. I'm definitely not trying to justify just trying to figure out if there is any way someone could "legally" spin this in a way that could justify the action or in the very least justify making the initial phone calls.
Let's not forget guys, the experts or "guys in the know" stated that "2 phone calls" were not in regards to spike or no spike, they were in regards to weapon use. :twocents:
Kiti can't seem to answer the relevant questions.
I have answered it more than once. Again you seem to have problems with reading comprehension. I'm not going to keep repeatin myself because you can't keep up.
An Internet forum does not decide guilt or innocence, impose legal punishments, fines etc. You guys whining make it sound like people are not allowed to discuss, comment, provide opinions, theories, or perspectives until the entire matter has been fully adjudicated. Get real. Oh and here's a tip...dont do shady, unethical, or illegal things and you won't likely be the source of public criticism :tup:Yep, you're right.What is that? :dunno:
No need for an actual court of law when you've got the Hunt Washington posse saddled up and ready to ride.
Who needs due process when you can just decide on the internet.
I say we start a new rumor.
Let's see how far we can go with this one:
Bullwinkle was a transgendered bull, because he "felt" like a cow. He was only shot as a result of a heinous Euro-centric micro-agression.
Worse yet, he was shot in his "safe place".
If you are a white male, you are fully responsible for this atrocity and owe reparations.
I say let's not let this atrocity stand!!!!!!!!!
OCCUPY KITTITAS!!!!!!!!!
I really don't know what to say to that :o. But now that it seems to all be a free for all and I find my self in in the dreaded situation I need to take a seat in a public place, I may just realize I woke up a woman that morning if the men's room smells to bad....
I'm afraid the strain was more than he could bear.
I feel bad and want to clear something up here (he may want to clearn that up on his record). I did accuse JDHasty of illegally using lead shot. Turns out that may not be the truth. If one does a criminal search that is what shows up on him. But the court docket shows is not reporting pheasant kills A criminal infl action as well. . One could call it poaching bird's? I do know one thing if I had been accused of that and it wasn't true I would want my day in court. He didn't , as he went bail forfeiture.
I'm betting 90% on here like myself have never been cited for a game violation? We all know how few wardens are out there. I can't help but wonder how many times this guy cheated us out of opportunities before and after h3 got cought? Yet he leads the witchhunt on a bull that the game department said was ok?
I feel bad and want to clear something up here (he may want to clearn that up on his record). I did accuse JDHasty of illegally using lead shot. Turns out that may not be the truth. If one does a criminal search that is what shows up on him. But the court docket shows is not reporting pheasant kills A criminal infl action as well. . One could call it poaching bird's? I do know one thing if I had been accused of that and it wasn't true I would want my day in court. He didn't , as he went bail forfeiture.
I'm betting 90% on here like myself have never been cited for a game violation? We all know how few wardens are out there. I can't help but wonder how many times this guy cheated us out of opportunities before and after h3 got cought? Yet he leads the witchhunt on a bull that the game department said was ok?
I'm confused, what does any of that have to do with Tod Reichert killing a bull in GMU 334?........nothing but trying to deflect from the real issue!!!
How about you finally manning up and answering the questions you've been asked, or providing links proving you already have...... :chuckle:
My guess is you will avoid it again, prove me wrong.
I feel bad and want to clear something up here (he may want to clearn that up on his record). I did accuse JDHasty of illegally using lead shot. Turns out that may not be the truth. If one does a criminal search that is what shows up on him. But the court docket shows is not reporting pheasant kills A criminal infl action as well. . One could call it poaching bird's? I do know one thing if I had been accused of that and it wasn't true I would want my day in court. He didn't , as he went bail forfeiture.
I'm betting 90% on here like myself have never been cited for a game violation? We all know how few wardens are out there. I can't help but wonder how many times this guy cheated us out of opportunities before and after h3 got cought? Yet he leads the witchhunt on a bull that the game department said was ok?
I'm confused, what does any of that have to do with Tod Reichert killing a bull in GMU 334?........nothing but trying to deflect from the real issue!!!
How about you finally manning up and answering the questions you've been asked, or providing links proving you already have...... :chuckle:
My guess is you will avoid it again, prove me wrong.
In one case the party tried to make sure all was right. And that will come out in court. In the situation I just described a real poacher was caught, and I fact one that is very vocal for a mistake made by the game department and yet he tries to blame it on. The hunter.
Fool or as I seen another call you wise one. Might be time to slow down. On this thread alone it has been proven you don't read well. Maybe we both should leave it there before we break any rules getting into your intelligence. That would be to easy.
I feel bad and want to clear something up here (he may want to clearn that up on his record). I did accuse JDHasty of illegally using lead shot. Turns out that may not be the truth. If one does a criminal search that is what shows up on him. But the court docket shows is not reporting pheasant kills A criminal infl action as well. . One could call it poaching bird's? I do know one thing if I had been accused of that and it wasn't true I would want my day in court. He didn't , as he went bail forfeiture.
I'm betting 90% on here like myself have never been cited for a game violation? We all know how few wardens are out there. I can't help but wonder how many times this guy cheated us out of opportunities before and after h3 got cought? Yet he leads the witchhunt on a bull that the game department said was ok?
I'm confused, what does any of that have to do with Tod Reichert killing a bull in GMU 334?........nothing but trying to deflect from the real issue!!!
How about you finally manning up and answering the questions you've been asked, or providing links proving you already have...... :chuckle:
My guess is you will avoid it again, prove me wrong.
In one case the party tried to make sure all was right. And that will come out in court. In the situation I just described a real poacher was caught, and I fact one that is very vocal for a mistake made by the game department and yet he tries to blame it on. The hunter.
Fool or as I seen another call you wise one. Might be time to slow down. On this thread alone it has been proven you don't read well. Maybe we both should leave it there before we break any rules getting into your intelligence. That would be to easy.
:chuckle: Thanks for proving my point, you never have answered those questions and are too afraid to! :chuckle:
They've been answered by other people. You dodge every single one.I feel bad and want to clear something up here (he may want to clearn that up on his record). I did accuse JDHasty of illegally using lead shot. Turns out that may not be the truth. If one does a criminal search that is what shows up on him. But the court docket shows is not reporting pheasant kills A criminal infl action as well. . One could call it poaching bird's? I do know one thing if I had been accused of that and it wasn't true I would want my day in court. He didn't , as he went bail forfeiture.
I'm betting 90% on here like myself have never been cited for a game violation? We all know how few wardens are out there. I can't help but wonder how many times this guy cheated us out of opportunities before and after h3 got cought? Yet he leads the witchhunt on a bull that the game department said was ok?
I'm confused, what does any of that have to do with Tod Reichert killing a bull in GMU 334?........nothing but trying to deflect from the real issue!!!
How about you finally manning up and answering the questions you've been asked, or providing links proving you already have...... :chuckle:
My guess is you will avoid it again, prove me wrong.
In one case the party tried to make sure all was right. And that will come out in court. In the situation I just described a real poacher was caught, and I fact one that is very vocal for a mistake made by the game department and yet he tries to blame it on. The hunter.
Fool or as I seen another call you wise one. Might be time to slow down. On this thread alone it has been proven you don't read well. Maybe we both should leave it there before we break any rules getting into your intelligence. That would be to easy.
:chuckle: Thanks for proving my point, you never have answered those questions and are too afraid to! :chuckle:
Yep been answered time and time again. Can't help it your slow. And that was putting it nicely.
I feel bad and want to clear something up here (he may want to clearn that up on his record). I did accuse JDHasty of illegally using lead shot. Turns out that may not be the truth. If one does a criminal search that is what shows up on him. But the court docket shows is not reporting pheasant kills A criminal infl action as well. . One could call it poaching bird's? I do know one thing if I had been accused of that and it wasn't true I would want my day in court. He didn't , as he went bail forfeiture.
I'm betting 90% on here like myself have never been cited for a game violation? We all know how few wardens are out there. I can't help but wonder how many times this guy cheated us out of opportunities before and after h3 got cought? Yet he leads the witchhunt on a bull that the game department said was ok?
I'm confused, what does any of that have to do with Tod Reichert killing a bull in GMU 334?........nothing but trying to deflect from the real issue!!!
How about you finally manning up and answering the questions you've been asked, or providing links proving you already have...... :chuckle:
My guess is you will avoid it again, prove me wrong.
In one case the party tried to make sure all was right. And that will come out in court. In the situation I just described a real poacher was caught, and I fact one that is very vocal for a mistake made by the game department and yet he tries to blame it on. The hunter.
Fool or as I seen another call you wise one. Might be time to slow down. On this thread alone it has been proven you don't read well. Maybe we both should leave it there before we break any rules getting into your intelligence. That would be to easy.
:chuckle: Thanks for proving my point, you never have answered those questions and are too afraid to! :chuckle:
Yep been answered time and time again. Can't help it your slow. And that was putting it nicely.
They've been answered by other people. You dodge every single one.I feel bad and want to clear something up here (he may want to clearn that up on his record). I did accuse JDHasty of illegally using lead shot. Turns out that may not be the truth. If one does a criminal search that is what shows up on him. But the court docket shows is not reporting pheasant kills A criminal infl action as well. . One could call it poaching bird's? I do know one thing if I had been accused of that and it wasn't true I would want my day in court. He didn't , as he went bail forfeiture.
I'm betting 90% on here like myself have never been cited for a game violation? We all know how few wardens are out there. I can't help but wonder how many times this guy cheated us out of opportunities before and after h3 got cought? Yet he leads the witchhunt on a bull that the game department said was ok?
I'm confused, what does any of that have to do with Tod Reichert killing a bull in GMU 334?........nothing but trying to deflect from the real issue!!!
How about you finally manning up and answering the questions you've been asked, or providing links proving you already have...... :chuckle:
My guess is you will avoid it again, prove me wrong.
In one case the party tried to make sure all was right. And that will come out in court. In the situation I just described a real poacher was caught, and I fact one that is very vocal for a mistake made by the game department and yet he tries to blame it on. The hunter.
Fool or as I seen another call you wise one. Might be time to slow down. On this thread alone it has been proven you don't read well. Maybe we both should leave it there before we break any rules getting into your intelligence. That would be to easy.
:chuckle: Thanks for proving my point, you never have answered those questions and are too afraid to! :chuckle:
Yep been answered time and time again. Can't help it your slow. And that was putting it nicely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I feel bad and want to clear something up here (he may want to clearn that up on his record). I did accuse JDHasty of illegally using lead shot. Turns out that may not be the truth. If one does a criminal search that is what shows up on him. But the court docket shows is not reporting pheasant kills A criminal infl action as well. . One could call it poaching bird's? I do know one thing if I had been accused of that and it wasn't true I would want my day in court. He didn't , as he went bail forfeiture.
I'm betting 90% on here like myself have never been cited for a game violation? We all know how few wardens are out there. I can't help but wonder how many times this guy cheated us out of opportunities before and after h3 got cought? Yet he leads the witchhunt on a bull that the game department said was ok?
I'm confused, what does any of that have to do with Tod Reichert killing a bull in GMU 334?........nothing but trying to deflect from the real issue!!!
How about you finally manning up and answering the questions you've been asked, or providing links proving you already have...... :chuckle:
My guess is you will avoid it again, prove me wrong.
In one case the party tried to make sure all was right. And that will come out in court. In the situation I just described a real poacher was caught, and I fact one that is very vocal for a mistake made by the game department and yet he tries to blame it on. The hunter.
Fool or as I seen another call you wise one. Might be time to slow down. On this thread alone it has been proven you don't read well. Maybe we both should leave it there before we break any rules getting into your intelligence. That would be to easy.
:chuckle: Thanks for proving my point, you never have answered those questions and are too afraid to! :chuckle:
Yep been answered time and time again. Can't help it your slow. And that was putting it nicely.
And there you have it, Kiti is too afraid (cs) to answer the relevant questions everyone has asked, rather he tries to deflect the real issue with others irrelevant alleged violations. :chuckle:
By the way, I may be slow but I'm literate.
Why even be in the unit in the first place ? Obviously knowing it was illegal , hence why the call was made.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, normally (as I understand it anyway), wdfw investigates, complies evidence, and then recommends the county prosecute the case if the evidence is good. If the evidence is lacking, I would think they would not want to go thru with prosecution.I can't remember the answer to this one: If Morgan Grant said it was okay for TR to shoot a branch bull in 334, why would wdfw investigate and recommend the county prosecute? Or did they not recommend prosecution?
Seems like the county would be wasting time and money by prosecution if the state official did in fact give the go ahead (even though he may not have technically had the authority).
???
If you can find any evidence that WDFW recommended prosecution I would love to see it. That would be news to me.
I'm betting 90% on here like myself have never been cited for a game violation? We all know how few wardens are out there. I can't help but wonder how many times this guy cheated us out of opportunities before and after he got cauht? Yet he leads the witchhunt on a bull that the game department said was ok?
Glass houses?
I feel bad and want to clear something up here (he may want to clean that up on his record). I did accuse JDHasty of illegally using lead shot. Turns out that may not be the truth. If one does a criminal search that is what shows up on him. But the court docket shows is it pheasant kills and not reporting A criminal violation as well. . One could call it poaching bird's? I do know one thing if I had been accused of that and it wasn't true I would want my day in court. He didn't , as he went bail forfeiture.
I'm betting 90% on here like myself have never been cited for a game violation? We all know how few wardens are out there. I can't help but wonder how many times this guy cheated us out of opportunities before and after he got cauht? Yet he leads the witchhunt on a bull that the game department said was ok?
Glass houses?
There really is no other explanation for it than extreme jealousy.Are you the judge and jury about that, or just the judge?
Nope, just pointing out the odvioise. I understand you folks from King County see things differently.
Is witch hunting even legal in GMU 334?Depends on what side of the canal you are on. JK
That was the most valuable post in the last 47 pages of this thread. :tung:
Kiti, I believe you were the one who's post was nuked that was comparing a members failure to purchase a new license for the new year ticket to the Bullwinkle killing, suggesting they were both mistakes.
Forgive me if I missed them, but searched through many pages and did not find a direct answer to several questions that have been asked of you. You have stated you are here to clear things up, sooooo please give me some insight on these basic questions.
1. Was TR's shooting this particular bull a mistake, or was it all legit per the WDFW phone calls?
2. I know you have stated "2 calls were made", were there only 2,or more?
3. Were these calls all out going from TR's group, or did a WDFW employee call back?
4. Were any of these calls recorded?
5. Was the bull killed the same day the calls were made?
6. Was the bull tagged at the kill site, or at the processing site?
7. What unit was listed as the place of kill on the hunters report?
8. You and a couple others are very defensive of this situation. Are you defending TR, or just trying to CYA?
I believe that a simple yes or no, or a couple words can answer all of these, and will help you clear things up (which is why you are here correct) for a lot of folks on here.
Thank you for your time.
Kiti, I believe you were the one who's post was nuked that was comparing a members failure to purchase a new license for the new year ticket to the Bullwinkle killing, suggesting they were both mistakes.
Forgive me if I missed them, but searched through many pages and did not find a direct answer to several questions that have been asked of you. You have stated you are here to clear things up, sooooo please give me some insight on these basic questions.
1. Was TR's shooting this particular bull a mistake, or was it all legit per the WDFW phone calls?
2. I know you have stated "2 calls were made", were there only 2,or more?
3. Were these calls all out going from TR's group, or did a WDFW employee call back?
4. Were any of these calls recorded?
5. Was the bull killed the same day the calls were made?
6. Was the bull tagged at the kill site, or at the processing site?
7. What unit was listed as the place of kill on the hunters report?
8. You and a couple others are very defensive of this situation. Are you defending TR, or just trying to CYA?
I believe that a simple yes or no, or a couple words can answer all of these, and will help you clear things up (which is why you are here correct) for a lot of folks on here.
Thank you for your time.
My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?
I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?
If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?
But in many cases, your 2nd amendment rights are suspended until after being found not guilty. For example a woman can claim domestic violence and the police will come take all the firearms and he can't purchase anything until after a trial clears him.My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?
I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?
If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?
Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.
My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?
I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?
If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?
Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.
I agree with Dale. Until he is legally found guilty I don't believe he should lose hunting privileges.My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?
I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?
If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?
Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.
:yeah:I agree with Dale. Until he is legally found guilty I don't believe he should lose hunting privileges.My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?
I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?
If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?
Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.
No, it's still punishment before any verdict. If personal safety is really an issue, the person should be held in jail.Okay. I am thinking taking the guns away is cheaper than putting them in jail, in both cases they don't have access to the firearms. In my case they can still injure the person with a knife, hatchet, baseball bat or whatever. I like your solution better lock them up then everyone is safer. It would just suck to get locked up because somebody said you assaulted them. I personally would rather just loose my guns for a while as I fought through the allegations. Sounds like you think we should lock them up as soon as an allegation is made. We will have to agree to disagree.
A little song for you today....in my best singing voice;
"Ohh I wish I was a auction/raffle tag holder
That is all I truly want to be
Cause if I was a auction/raffle tag holder
Everyone would be so jealous of me
Oh I'm glad I'm not a auction/raffle tag holder
That is what I'd never want to be
Cause if I were a auction/raffle tag holder
There would soon be nothing left to hunt for me"
But in many cases, your 2nd amendment rights are suspended until after being found not guilty. For example a woman can claim domestic violence and the police will come take all the firearms and he can't purchase anything until after a trial clears him.My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?
I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?
If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?
Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.
I agree, you are presumed innocent. TR should be allowed to hunt during this time period. I was just pointing out to bearpaw, that there are cases where you lose rights (not privileges) during the court phase. Not to get off track too much, but most of the people awaiting trial for some crime of violence that are free on bail were determined to not be a threat...yet still lose (known) guns. Can easily just buy one from a gang banger to replace what the court took. Just seems wonky.No, it's still punishment before any verdict. If personal safety is really an issue, the person should be held in jail.Okay. I am thinking taking the guns away is cheaper than putting them in jail, in both cases they don't have access to the firearms. In my case they can still injure the person with a knife, hatchet, baseball bat or whatever. I like your solution better lock them up then everyone is safer. It would just suck to get locked up because somebody said you assaulted them. I personally would rather just loose my guns for a while as I fought through the allegations. Sounds like you think we should lock them up as soon as an allegation is made. We will have to agree to disagree.
This has got the thread totally off track though. If I were accused I wouldn't want my right to hunt taken away, I would want my day in court first.
There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.
:tup:I agree, you are presumed innocent. TR should be allowed to hunt during this time period. I was just pointing out to bearpaw, that there are cases where you lose rights (not privileges) during the court phase. Not to get off track too much, but most of the people awaiting trial for some crime of violence that are free on bail were determined to not be a threat...yet still lose (known) guns. Can easily just buy one from a gang banger to replace what the court took. Just seems wonky.No, it's still punishment before any verdict. If personal safety is really an issue, the person should be held in jail.Okay. I am thinking taking the guns away is cheaper than putting them in jail, in both cases they don't have access to the firearms. In my case they can still injure the person with a knife, hatchet, baseball bat or whatever. I like your solution better lock them up then everyone is safer. It would just suck to get locked up because somebody said you assaulted them. I personally would rather just loose my guns for a while as I fought through the allegations. Sounds like you think we should lock them up as soon as an allegation is made. We will have to agree to disagree.
This has got the thread totally off track though. If I were accused I wouldn't want my right to hunt taken away, I would want my day in court first.
There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.
There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.There is a difference between someone accusing you...he said/she said stuff...and a Prosecutor filing criminal charges. In this specific case, and many big game poaching cases, I would likely support suspension of hunting privileges when criminal charges are filed. I bet Reichert wouldn't be filing all these extensions and trying to drag this out for 5 years like he did in his last criminal poaching case if all hunting privileges were suspended pending the outcome of his charges. He has a right to a speedy trial...if he's innocent and wants his hunting privleges restored...then he should get on the ball. If he wants to waive that right so he can milk the system and drive up costs to taxpayers...that's his choice...but he shouldn't be allowed to do it while maintaining hunting privileges. :twocents:
There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.There is a difference between someone accusing you...he said/she said stuff...and a Prosecutor filing criminal charges. In this specific case, and many big game poaching cases, I would likely support suspension of hunting privileges when criminal charges are filed. I bet Reichert wouldn't be filing all these extensions and trying to drag this out for 5 years like he did in his last criminal poaching case if all hunting privileges were suspended pending the outcome of his charges. He has a right to a speedy trial...if he's innocent and wants his hunting privleges restored...then he should get on the ball. If he wants to waive that right so he can milk the system and drive up costs to taxpayers...that's his choice...but he shouldn't be allowed to do it while maintaining hunting privileges. :twocents:
Seems like a very slippery slope to me to start handing out punishment before guilt is known!
I bet TR wishes he had the permission in writing. If he really did get permission to shoot a branched bull in 334 then it is bs that he was cited (even if shooting the bull might be ethically wrong in some people's minds). It may be a good lesson; hopefully in the future if a guy gets the okay from a wdfw employee for something, a followup text or email should be requested.
Yeah especially if it's permission to violate the law and not just clarification of the law.
I am not so sure I want to hear the reason. My dad used to say" don't ask a question that you are not ready for the worst possible answer to." I am scared that what I hear when the dust settles might make me want to :puke:Yeah especially if it's permission to violate the law and not just clarification of the law.
I would certainly like to hear the reasoning why permission to shoot the bull was granted? :chuckle:
Happens all day long with driving privileges...licenses are suspended even before any criminal charges are filed. He has the right to a speedy trial. If he's innocent he can move quickly to his acquittal.There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.There is a difference between someone accusing you...he said/she said stuff...and a Prosecutor filing criminal charges. In this specific case, and many big game poaching cases, I would likely support suspension of hunting privileges when criminal charges are filed. I bet Reichert wouldn't be filing all these extensions and trying to drag this out for 5 years like he did in his last criminal poaching case if all hunting privileges were suspended pending the outcome of his charges. He has a right to a speedy trial...if he's innocent and wants his hunting privleges restored...then he should get on the ball. If he wants to waive that right so he can milk the system and drive up costs to taxpayers...that's his choice...but he shouldn't be allowed to do it while maintaining hunting privileges. :twocents:
If his story is true that WDFW gave him permission I've got a Benjamin that says the court finds him innocent. You are saying he should lose his privileges in the mean time? Sorry but that doesn't fly very well!
Happens all day long with driving privileges...licenses are suspended even before any criminal charges are filed. He has the right to a speedy trial. If he's innocent he can move quickly to his acquittal.There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.There is a difference between someone accusing you...he said/she said stuff...and a Prosecutor filing criminal charges. In this specific case, and many big game poaching cases, I would likely support suspension of hunting privileges when criminal charges are filed. I bet Reichert wouldn't be filing all these extensions and trying to drag this out for 5 years like he did in his last criminal poaching case if all hunting privileges were suspended pending the outcome of his charges. He has a right to a speedy trial...if he's innocent and wants his hunting privleges restored...then he should get on the ball. If he wants to waive that right so he can milk the system and drive up costs to taxpayers...that's his choice...but he shouldn't be allowed to do it while maintaining hunting privileges. :twocents:
If his story is true that WDFW gave him permission I've got a Benjamin that says the court finds him innocent. You are saying he should lose his privileges in the mean time? Sorry but that doesn't fly very well!
I agree with you - if Morgan Grant gave clear permission for him to shoot this bull in GMU 334, a jury will not convict him. If WDFW/Grant confirms this defense that the officer gave clear permission, I fully support the immediate termination of Morgan Grant and a recall vote for the County Prosecutor for wasting resources. If WDFW disputes the call or pertinent details, given Reicherts previous convictions for lying, then I am inclined to believe the State and hope Reichert is punished.
Given most of us were not there, and those that were are likely biased, we are all left to our own life experiences to weigh the various stories, theories, defenses, and accounts of the event which have been published. I don't see a Prosecutor in a million years filing charges if the States lead officer is going to testify in support of the defense that he gave clear permission to shoot that bull in that location. I will be the first to say the State and County really, really screwed up if this phone call went down as some on here are suggesting.
I will agree to disagree... :sry:I agree with Dale. Until he is legally found guilty I don't believe he should lose hunting privileges.My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?
I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?
If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?
Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.
I bet TR wishes he had the permission in writing. If he really did get permission to shoot a branched bull in 334 then it is bs that he was cited (even if shooting the bull might be ethically wrong in some people's minds). It may be a good lesson; hopefully in the future if a guy gets the okay from a wdfw employee for something, a followup text or email should be requested.
Maybe this question has been asked and I missed it:
If he was granted permission by an employee of WDFW (who actually had the authority to do so), and everything is as locked up and on the up-n-up as some people are claiming, why wouldn't he be pushing for a speedy trial? Get this whole mess behind him, clear his name? Why would he be delaying court dates and stalling the process? Just curious.
I think the question to wfdw was, can we shoot a bull in 334 with a muzzleloader? Wfdw says sure thinking they ment spike bull. Permission granted
I think the question to wfdw was, can we shoot a bull in 334 with a muzzleloader? Wfdw says sure thinking they ment spike bull. Permission granted
Why he ask that question when the answer to his intended question would be and is clearly in the regs?
Kiti, I believe you were the one who's post was nuked that was comparing a members failure to purchase a new license for the new year ticket to the Bullwinkle killing, suggesting they were both mistakes.
Forgive me if I missed them, but searched through many pages and did not find a direct answer to several questions that have been asked of you. You have stated you are here to clear things up, sooooo please give me some insight on these basic questions.
1. Was TR's shooting this particular bull a mistake, or was it all legit per the WDFW phone calls?
2. I know you have stated "2 calls were made", were there only 2,or more?
3. Were these calls all out going from TR's group, or did a WDFW employee call back?
4. Were any of these calls recorded?
5. Was the bull killed the same day the calls were made?
6. Was the bull tagged at the kill site, or at the processing site?
7. What unit was listed as the place of kill on the hunters report?
8. You and a couple others are very defensive of this situation. Are you defending TR, or just trying to CYA?
I believe that a simple yes or no, or a couple words can answer all of these, and will help you clear things up (which is why you are here correct) for a lot of folks on here.
Thank you for your time.
I also think the prosecutor already knows if Grant gave permission. And has weighed that aspect in regards as to whether to proceed with the case.
:yeah:I agree with Dale. Until he is legally found guilty I don't believe he should lose hunting privileges.My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?
I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?
If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?
Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.
Especially in this case, the water is so muddy who knows what really happened? He has the right to defend himself from the charges and that takes time. He shouldn't be penalized for trying to defend himself.
The domestic violence charge is a completely different thing altogether, you are talking about personal safety of another human being potentially being at risk.
But in many cases, your 2nd amendment rights are suspended until after being found not guilty. For example a woman can claim domestic violence and the police will come take all the firearms and he can't purchase anything until after a trial clears him.My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?
I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?
If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?
Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.
I don't agree with the current system involving domestic violence because some people will falsely claim DV just to get at the person they are accusing. I'm not sure what the best answer is because in real cases of DV innocent abused people need protection. :dunno:
Kiti, I believe you were the one who's post was nuked that was comparing a members failure to purchase a new license for the new year ticket to the Bullwinkle killing, suggesting they were both mistakes.
Forgive me if I missed them, but searched through many pages and did not find a direct answer to several questions that have been asked of you. You have stated you are here to clear things up, sooooo please give me some insight on these basic questions.
1. Was TR's shooting this particular bull a mistake, or was it all legit per the WDFW phone calls?
2. I know you have stated "2 calls were made", were there only 2,or more?
3. Were these calls all out going from TR's group, or did a WDFW employee call back?
4. Were any of these calls recorded?
5. Was the bull killed the same day the calls were made?
6. Was the bull tagged at the kill site, or at the processing site?
7. What unit was listed as the place of kill on the hunters report?
8. You and a couple others are very defensive of this situation. Are you defending TR, or just trying to CYA?
I believe that a simple yes or no, or a couple words can answer all of these, and will help you clear things up (which is why you are here correct) for a lot of folks on here.
Thank you for your time.
#1. Mistake on WDFW part. When the calls were made WDFW gave the ok after looking into it.
#2. Was clear before on that. How many would it take to be ok in your mind. One or five I think personally shold be enough when they come up with a crystal clear answer?
#3 both
#4 no, but witnessed by several.
#5 no a day later.
#6 was moved to 3 dressed per request of the landowner that didn't want a gut pile in his field.
#7 not sure. Don't know?
Go ahead and ask #8, 9 and 10.
I also think the prosecutor already knows if Grant gave permission. And has weighed that aspect in regards as to whether to proceed with the case.
Time will tell? Easy to prosecute. Especially when when a small few have the phone ringing off the hook. Makes people happy. Think it will turn out to be a mistake for the county, I'm sure they figured they could get a deal done that made both sides look ok. Don't think that's going to happen in this case. No point walking away with even a hint of guilt when you should be 100% innocent in the situation.
NOT going through 48 pages to find out.......has he been charged? (please)
NOT going through 48 pages to find out.......has he been charged? (please)
yes he has.
Sort of a side question but I think was asked a few pages ago. Why did he not lose truck/rifle/elk head/etc....didn't rt lose everything when he was accused of poaching a few years ago?? And that was just on a two pt md! Not even for what the state claims as a trophy! Just curious if this were a serious offense why the same isn't being done with this current case? (Rt was found NOT GUILTY to any new readers btw)
IMO, :yeah: could be why a couple new posters to this site/thread specifically are very adamant about this being a not guilty outcome.I am more worried about whether I should buy more worms before I head to Moses Lake on Wednesday.
#1 Officers (any LEO enforcing F&W laws not just WDFW) can seize it under their authority, you can't say "no"Sort of a side question but I think was asked a few pages ago. Why did he not lose truck/rifle/elk head/etc....didn't rt lose everything when he was accused of poaching a few years ago?? And that was just on a two pt md! Not even for what the state claims as a trophy! Just curious if this were a serious offense why the same isn't being done with this current case? (Rt was found NOT GUILTY to any new readers btw)That's a very good point. It seems I heard that if you voluntarily give them your weapon they take it, but they can't take if you say no. Is that correct?
Another question, I've heard of wardens entering a home and taking all sorts of things, how does that work?
Why even be in the unit in the first place ? Obviously knowing it was illegal , hence why the call was made.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The game department didn't seem to think there was a problem with it at the time.
IMO, :yeah: could be why a couple new posters to this site/thread specifically are very adamant about this being a not guilty outcome.
#1 Officers (any LEO enforcing F&W laws not just WDFW) can seize it under their authority, you can't say "no"Sort of a side question but I think was asked a few pages ago. Why did he not lose truck/rifle/elk head/etc....didn't rt lose everything when he was accused of poaching a few years ago?? And that was just on a two pt md! Not even for what the state claims as a trophy! Just curious if this were a serious offense why the same isn't being done with this current case? (Rt was found NOT GUILTY to any new readers btw)That's a very good point. It seems I heard that if you voluntarily give them your weapon they take it, but they can't take if you say no. Is that correct?
Another question, I've heard of wardens entering a home and taking all sorts of things, how does that work?
#2 Pursuant to a search warrant. Or if the person allows them to.
IMO, :yeah: could be why a couple new posters to this site/thread specifically are very adamant about this being a not guilty outcome.I was kind of curious about that also...
#1 Officers (any LEO enforcing F&W laws not just WDFW) can seize it under their authority, you can't say "no"Sort of a side question but I think was asked a few pages ago. Why did he not lose truck/rifle/elk head/etc....didn't rt lose everything when he was accused of poaching a few years ago?? And that was just on a two pt md! Not even for what the state claims as a trophy! Just curious if this were a serious offense why the same isn't being done with this current case? (Rt was found NOT GUILTY to any new readers btw)That's a very good point. It seems I heard that if you voluntarily give them your weapon they take it, but they can't take if you say no. Is that correct?
Another question, I've heard of wardens entering a home and taking all sorts of things, how does that work?
#2 Pursuant to a search warrant. Or if the person allows them to.
Well first off we need to understand there are items that are seized as evidence in the criminal case, and there are items seized civilly. The civil forfeiture is the law most people know about it is essentially a separate case from the criminal case. The criminal judge can order the return of the evidence in the criminal case, but they have no jurisdiction in the civil forfeiture.Thanks for clarification.#1 Officers (any LEO enforcing F&W laws not just WDFW) can seize it under their authority, you can't say "no"Sort of a side question but I think was asked a few pages ago. Why did he not lose truck/rifle/elk head/etc....didn't rt lose everything when he was accused of poaching a few years ago?? And that was just on a two pt md! Not even for what the state claims as a trophy! Just curious if this were a serious offense why the same isn't being done with this current case? (Rt was found NOT GUILTY to any new readers btw)That's a very good point. It seems I heard that if you voluntarily give them your weapon they take it, but they can't take if you say no. Is that correct?
Another question, I've heard of wardens entering a home and taking all sorts of things, how does that work?
#2 Pursuant to a search warrant. Or if the person allows them to.
So if you are found innocent does all your stuff have to be returned?
Well first off we need to understand there are items that are seized as evidence in the criminal case, and there are items seized civilly. The civil forfeiture is the law most people know about it is essentially a separate case from the criminal case. The criminal judge can order the return of the evidence in the criminal case, but they have no jurisdiction in the civil forfeiture.Thanks for clarification.#1 Officers (any LEO enforcing F&W laws not just WDFW) can seize it under their authority, you can't say "no"Sort of a side question but I think was asked a few pages ago. Why did he not lose truck/rifle/elk head/etc....didn't rt lose everything when he was accused of poaching a few years ago?? And that was just on a two pt md! Not even for what the state claims as a trophy! Just curious if this were a serious offense why the same isn't being done with this current case? (Rt was found NOT GUILTY to any new readers btw)That's a very good point. It seems I heard that if you voluntarily give them your weapon they take it, but they can't take if you say no. Is that correct?
Another question, I've heard of wardens entering a home and taking all sorts of things, how does that work?
#2 Pursuant to a search warrant. Or if the person allows them to.
So if you are found innocent does all your stuff have to be returned?
As you can see in the above RCW you are notified via an official notice regarding your rights in the civil forfeiture. If you get the notice and do nothing and it turns out months down the road you are found not guilty your items will not be returned because you failed to follow the law in contesting the forfeiture. Essentially you need to tell WDFW within 45 days of their notice you want your stuff back and are contesting it.
So here's my 'advice'. If you are "wrongfully" charged and an officer seizes property for forfeiture immediately file the claim that you are contesting the forfeiture. At least now you could use the criminal case adjudication in the civil case. So if you are found not guilty criminally you could bring that up in the civil forfeiture contest hearing.
Prosecutors have one year to file misdemeanor charges and two years to file gross misdemeanor charges (such as unlawful take of big game 2nd degree) so obviously that is outside of that 45 day contest notification window. You definitely don't want to be sitting around thinking well when I am found not guilty WDFW will give me my stuff, because under state law that's not how it works.
If I remember correctly you took a plea deal on the criminal charges.....In other words, WDFW are thieves! Why would anyone PAY to get a gun back when they did nothing wrong! This is what mudt do withing Bigtex's 45 day response he is talking about in the civil part. And why is there two rules to one crime?Well first off we need to understand there are items that are seized as evidence in the criminal case, and there are items seized civilly. The civil forfeiture is the law most people know about it is essentially a separate case from the criminal case. The criminal judge can order the return of the evidence in the criminal case, but they have no jurisdiction in the civil forfeiture.Thanks for clarification.#1 Officers (any LEO enforcing F&W laws not just WDFW) can seize it under their authority, you can't say "no"Sort of a side question but I think was asked a few pages ago. Why did he not lose truck/rifle/elk head/etc....didn't rt lose everything when he was accused of poaching a few years ago?? And that was just on a two pt md! Not even for what the state claims as a trophy! Just curious if this were a serious offense why the same isn't being done with this current case? (Rt was found NOT GUILTY to any new readers btw)That's a very good point. It seems I heard that if you voluntarily give them your weapon they take it, but they can't take if you say no. Is that correct?
Another question, I've heard of wardens entering a home and taking all sorts of things, how does that work?
#2 Pursuant to a search warrant. Or if the person allows them to.
So if you are found innocent does all your stuff have to be returned?
As you can see in the above RCW you are notified via an official notice regarding your rights in the civil forfeiture. If you get the notice and do nothing and it turns out months down the road you are found not guilty your items will not be returned because you failed to follow the law in contesting the forfeiture. Essentially you need to tell WDFW within 45 days of their notice you want your stuff back and are contesting it.
So here's my 'advice'. If you are "wrongfully" charged and an officer seizes property for forfeiture immediately file the claim that you are contesting the forfeiture. At least now you could use the criminal case adjudication in the civil case. So if you are found not guilty criminally you could bring that up in the civil forfeiture contest hearing.
Prosecutors have one year to file misdemeanor charges and two years to file gross misdemeanor charges (such as unlawful take of big game 2nd degree) so obviously that is outside of that 45 day contest notification window. You definitely don't want to be sitting around thinking well when I am found not guilty WDFW will give me my stuff, because under state law that's not how it works.
It seems the forfeiture laws are "subjectively inforced" or is there extenuating circumstances to why the were not enforced in this case.Civil forfeiture is not used in all cases, in fact I'd say it's probably used in like 1-3% of all WDFW cases. It all comes down to officer discretion.
With so many people involved it would be a windfall for the WDFW, lol
If I remember correctly you took a plea deal on the criminal charges.....In other words, WDFW are thieves! Why would anyone PAY to get a gun back when they did nothing wrong! This is what mudt do withing Bigtex's 45 day response he is talking about in the civil part. And why is there two rules to one crime?Well first off we need to understand there are items that are seized as evidence in the criminal case, and there are items seized civilly. The civil forfeiture is the law most people know about it is essentially a separate case from the criminal case. The criminal judge can order the return of the evidence in the criminal case, but they have no jurisdiction in the civil forfeiture.Thanks for clarification.#1 Officers (any LEO enforcing F&W laws not just WDFW) can seize it under their authority, you can't say "no"Sort of a side question but I think was asked a few pages ago. Why did he not lose truck/rifle/elk head/etc....didn't rt lose everything when he was accused of poaching a few years ago?? And that was just on a two pt md! Not even for what the state claims as a trophy! Just curious if this were a serious offense why the same isn't being done with this current case? (Rt was found NOT GUILTY to any new readers btw)That's a very good point. It seems I heard that if you voluntarily give them your weapon they take it, but they can't take if you say no. Is that correct?
Another question, I've heard of wardens entering a home and taking all sorts of things, how does that work?
#2 Pursuant to a search warrant. Or if the person allows them to.
So if you are found innocent does all your stuff have to be returned?
As you can see in the above RCW you are notified via an official notice regarding your rights in the civil forfeiture. If you get the notice and do nothing and it turns out months down the road you are found not guilty your items will not be returned because you failed to follow the law in contesting the forfeiture. Essentially you need to tell WDFW within 45 days of their notice you want your stuff back and are contesting it.
So here's my 'advice'. If you are "wrongfully" charged and an officer seizes property for forfeiture immediately file the claim that you are contesting the forfeiture. At least now you could use the criminal case adjudication in the civil case. So if you are found not guilty criminally you could bring that up in the civil forfeiture contest hearing.
Prosecutors have one year to file misdemeanor charges and two years to file gross misdemeanor charges (such as unlawful take of big game 2nd degree) so obviously that is outside of that 45 day contest notification window. You definitely don't want to be sitting around thinking well when I am found not guilty WDFW will give me my stuff, because under state law that's not how it works.
I know of many instances where gear was handed over at no charge once individuals were found to be not guilty in the criminal case.
Your people are thieves hiding behind badges and paperwork that only an attorney cant understand. I did not plead guilty. And why was I in a courtroom with a judge who could punish me if found guilty but the same judge does not have authority to give my gun back even though he ordered it in writing to be given back???You did take a plea deal in which you had to essentially not violate any laws for a few months correct?
I think the point he's trying to make is that just because that's the way it is doesn't make it right.Your people are thieves hiding behind badges and paperwork that only an attorney cant understand. I did not plead guilty. And why was I in a courtroom with a judge who could punish me if found guilty but the same judge does not have authority to give my gun back even though he ordered it in writing to be given back???You did take a plea deal in which you had to essentially not violate any laws for a few months correct?
I will only say it once because we have discussed it before. You have criminal judges who handle criminal cases and administrative judges who handle civil/administrative cases. If you don't understand that then sign up for intro to law classes at your local community college.
Why would you take a plea deal if you were innocent?
Well if I was innocent, I not only would not take a plea deal, I would see the WDFW in civil court. They seem to hemorrhage money in that system.Why would you take a plea deal if you were innocent?
And OJ was innocent right :chuckle: Oh yeah he was found guilty in civil court :dunno:
That's the chance you take with the system even if innocent, can't blame anyone for making sure they don't get railroaded to the pokey
This whole Bullwinkle thread is very confusing.It was the raffle tag. ... :dunno: :chuckle:
I didn't think there was even a Governor's tag for moose in 334???
Well if I was innocent, I not only would not take a plea deal, I would see the WDFW in civil court. They seem to hemorrhage money in that system.Why would you take a plea deal if you were innocent?
And OJ was innocent right :chuckle: Oh yeah he was found guilty in civil court :dunno:
That's the chance you take with the system even if innocent, can't blame anyone for making sure they don't get railroaded to the pokey
I think there's a little more to it than that. I do agree with part of your statement.Well if I was innocent, I not only would not take a plea deal, I would see the WDFW in civil court. They seem to hemorrhage money in that system.Why would you take a plea deal if you were innocent?
And OJ was innocent right :chuckle: Oh yeah he was found guilty in civil court :dunno:
That's the chance you take with the system even if innocent, can't blame anyone for making sure they don't get railroaded to the pokey
Innocence sometimes has nothing to do with the legal system :twocents:
PopeShawn gave a great example of a dui victims account of being setup by the system.
Look at this thread... Fact-- TR shot a branched antlered elk in a closed gmu yet it is up for interpretation by a judge or jury who will decide what guilt or innocence is...
Kittitas is not good at fish and wildlife cases. They're standard plea policy is to drop criminal cases to an infraction if you are a good boy for a few months.Eastside counties aren't immune to this. Basically if you have an interstate highway in your county the prosecutor will be too busy to handle fish and wildlife cases.Kittitas County has an interstate hwy running thru it and they are prosecuting the bullwinkle case. Is that simply because it is such a high profile case? Do they drop most other poaching cases? :dunno:
"Reichert told police that he had relied on the locals to tell him if they “were good to go” on the hunt, and they had said yes."
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/trophy-hunter-charged-with-illegal-kill-of-bullwinkle-prized-ellensburg-elk/Quote"Reichert told police that he had relied on the locals to tell him if they “were good to go” on the hunt, and they had said yes."
Interesting, Reichert talks to police but doesn't mention the alleged "phone calls" to WDFW. That's a critical bit of information he left out isn't it? :dunno:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/trophy-hunter-charged-with-illegal-kill-of-bullwinkle-prized-ellensburg-elk/Quote"Reichert told police that he had relied on the locals to tell him if they “were good to go” on the hunt, and they had said yes."
Interesting, Reichert talks to police but doesn't mention the alleged "phone calls" to WDFW. That's a critical bit of information he left out isn't it? :dunno:
Probably those same locals who joined this site about 2 months ago trying to get in the clear :yike:
Why does it always seem only about the money?I'm not sure what good 2016 tags would be if hunting rights were forfeited.
"The Kittitas County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office had offered a stay of proceedings if Reichert paid a $12,000 civil penalty, forfeited hunting rights for 12 months and performed 24 hours of community service."
So he pays $12k and no conviction!!
Does that mean he also forfeits 2016's tags and money?
$12K is nothing to this "alleged Poacher"
What a crock of crap!
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/trophy-hunter-charged-with-illegal-kill-of-bullwinkle-prized-ellensburg-elk/Yeah, somehow knew that once it was picked up by the Seattle Slimes it would generate good press for hunting.....Quote"Reichert told police that he had relied on the locals to tell him if they “were good to go” on the hunt, and they had said yes."
Interesting, Reichert talks to police but doesn't mention the alleged "phone calls" to WDFW. That's a critical bit of information he left out isn't it? :dunno:
Why does it always seem only about the money?I'm not sure what good 2016 tags would be if hunting rights were forfeited.
"The Kittitas County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office had offered a stay of proceedings if Reichert paid a $12,000 civil penalty, forfeited hunting rights for 12 months and performed 24 hours of community service."
So he pays $12k and no conviction!!
Does that mean he also forfeits 2016's tags and money?
$12K is nothing to this "alleged Poacher"
What a crock of crap!
Kiti, I believe you were the one who's post was nuked that was comparing a members failure to purchase a new license for the new year ticket to the Bullwinkle killing, suggesting they were both mistakes.
Forgive me if I missed them, but searched through many pages and did not find a direct answer to several questions that have been asked of you. You have stated you are here to clear things up, sooooo please give me some insight on these basic questions.
1. Was TR's shooting this particular bull a mistake, or was it all legit per the WDFW phone calls?
2. I know you have stated "2 calls were made", were there only 2,or more?
3. Were these calls all out going from TR's group, or did a WDFW employee call back?
4. Were any of these calls recorded?
5. Was the bull killed the same day the calls were made?
6. Was the bull tagged at the kill site, or at the processing site?
7. What unit was listed as the place of kill on the hunters report?
8. You and a couple others are very defensive of this situation. Are you defending TR, or just trying to CYA?
I believe that a simple yes or no, or a couple words can answer all of these, and will help you clear things up (which is why you are here correct) for a lot of folks on here.
Thank you for your time.
#1. Mistake on WDFW part. When the calls were made WDFW gave the ok after looking into it.
#2. Was clear before on that. How many would it take to be ok in your mind. One or five I think personally shold be enough when they come up with a crystal clear answer?
#3 both
#4 no, but witnessed by several.
#5 no a day later.
#6 was moved to 3 dressed per request of the landowner that didn't want a gut pile in his field.
#7 not sure. Don't know?
Go ahead and ask #8, 9 and 10.
Kiti,
Thank you very much for answering the questions. I get the answer of #6, but, it does not answer the original question of where the bull was tagged :dunno:
Forgive me but I do not understand your reply of "Go ahead and ask #8, 9, 10" :dunno:
No, it doesn't say when the 12 months start. That would be negotiated between the prosecutor and the defendant. I'm not aware of any reason why the prosecutor would want to delay the start.Why does it always seem only about the money?I'm not sure what good 2016 tags would be if hunting rights were forfeited.
"The Kittitas County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office had offered a stay of proceedings if Reichert paid a $12,000 civil penalty, forfeited hunting rights for 12 months and performed 24 hours of community service."
So he pays $12k and no conviction!!
Does that mean he also forfeits 2016's tags and money?
$12K is nothing to this "alleged Poacher"
What a crock of crap!
It says "forfeit hunting rights for 12 months"
It does not say when the twelve months would start.
It also does not say if he gets back his "$75,000 for the same hunt in 2016".
Or are they going to "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" delay until after he has the opportunity to hunt in the fall?
$12k is nothing to someone who spends $100K in tags every year. So he does not hunt in Washington for 2016. He probably has many tags throughout the country to hunt instead.
And he ends up with no conviction, again!
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/trophy-hunter-charged-with-illegal-kill-of-bullwinkle-prized-ellensburg-elk/Quote"Reichert told police that he had relied on the locals to tell him if they “were good to go” on the hunt, and they had said yes."
Interesting, Reichert talks to police but doesn't mention the alleged "phone calls" to WDFW. That's a critical bit of information he left out isn't it? :dunno:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/trophy-hunter-charged-with-illegal-kill-of-bullwinkle-prized-ellensburg-elk/Quote"Reichert told police that he had relied on the locals to tell him if they “were good to go” on the hunt, and they had said yes."
Interesting, Reichert talks to police but doesn't mention the alleged "phone calls" to WDFW. That's a critical bit of information he left out isn't it? :dunno:
Probably those same locals who joined this site about 2 months ago trying to get in the clear :yike:
Could it be one of these locals that made a call, gave Reichert the wrong info, and then came on hear to attempt to cover their butts? :chuckle:
Seems odd that had Tod himself actually been in contact with WDFW, and given the "good to go", that he would forget to mention that little tidbit to police. :dunno:
A little birdie just told me Reichert has had a condition put on him at court, he can't hunt while the case is pending...case continued otherwise.
A little birdie just told me Reichert has had a condition put on him at court, he can't hunt while the case is pending...case continued otherwise.Is that a no hunting in Kittias county or WA state or the real deal anywhere on the planet?
The Kittitas County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office had offered a stay of proceedings if Reichert paid a $12,000 civil penalty, forfeited hunting rights for 12 months and performed 24 hours of community service.So if he were to take the deal, pay his $12k to WDFW, be a good boy and do 24 hours of community service he would have no criminal conviction, no DFW conviction. Sounds like another fantastic deal out of Kittitas County. :bash:
A little birdie just told me Reichert has had a condition put on him at court, he can't hunt while the case is pending...case continued otherwise.
A little birdie just told me Reichert has had a condition put on him at court, he can't hunt while the case is pending...case continued otherwise.
If that's true, it's awesome! :tup:
If that is true I think I might have taken that deal with what I have heard of the case. All I know is what has been posted on here and in the press. I just think I might have taken the deal and tried to get this behind me. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.The Kittitas County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office had offered a stay of proceedings if Reichert paid a $12,000 civil penalty, forfeited hunting rights for 12 months and performed 24 hours of community service.So if he were to take the deal, pay his $12k to WDFW, be a good boy and do 24 hours of community service he would have no criminal conviction, no DFW conviction. Sounds like another fantastic deal out of Kittitas County. :bash:
Jdhasty?
I think the loss of hunting in the US for 12 months is not an insignificant consequence for someone at his age who values hunting as much as he does.The Kittitas County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office had offered a stay of proceedings if Reichert paid a $12,000 civil penalty, forfeited hunting rights for 12 months and performed 24 hours of community service.So if he were to take the deal, pay his $12k to WDFW, be a good boy and do 24 hours of community service he would have no criminal conviction, no DFW conviction. Sounds like another fantastic deal out of Kittitas County. :bash:
Geez, how many pages would this thing go if he shot a Gorilla in Kittitas?
Geez, how many pages would this thing go if he shot a Gorilla in Kittitas?
http://q13fox.com/2016/06/21/trophy-hunter-appears-in-court-after-killing-beloved-ellensburg-elk/That article states it a Class C Felony, it isn't. He's facing a gross misdemeanor. In order for the felony charge he has to have a prior big game conviction in the past 5 years, he doesn't. He also wouldn't be in district court, but rather superior court.
Your answer made it on here before my question. :chuckle: Thanks. I heard felony and thought what a disparity compared to the Cambodian guy.http://q13fox.com/2016/06/21/trophy-hunter-appears-in-court-after-killing-beloved-ellensburg-elk/That article states it a Class C Felony, it isn't. He's facing a gross misdemeanor. In order for the felony charge he has to have a prior big game conviction in the past 5 years, he doesn't.
http://q13fox.com/2016/06/21/trophy-hunter-appears-in-court-after-killing-beloved-ellensburg-elk/That article states it a Class C Felony, it isn't. He's facing a gross misdemeanor. In order for the felony charge he has to have a prior big game conviction in the past 5 years, he doesn't. He also wouldn't be in district court, but rather superior court.
A little birdie just told me Reichert has had a condition put on him at court, he can't hunt while the case is pending...case continued otherwise.
:chuckle: Now that's funny.A little birdie just told me Reichert has had a condition put on him at court, he can't hunt while the case is pending...case continued otherwise.
What if he calls WDFW and asks someone if he can hunt?
At the worst he shot a bull in a closed unit.That's what he's charged with.....
A little birdie just told me Reichert has had a condition put on him at court, he can't hunt while the case is pending...case continued otherwise.
After the Operation Cody thing I can't see anything significant coming from this if he is convicted of anything. At the worst he shot a bull in a closed unit.Kind of what I was thinking, but then the different stories by those in the know made it sound like it could evolve into worse once in court. Ex: The phone calls and permission--if WDFW denies, then who is lying WDFW or TR and crew. I think perjury is much worse legally than poaching.
I hope the judge drops the fine, but raises the loss of hunting to 6-10 years. A 12k fine for a guy who pays 75k for an elk tag is pointless.A one year loss of hunting privileges for a 76 year old with cancer may represent a significant portion of his remaining hunting opportunities: perhaps like a ten year suspension for someone in his 40s or 50s. :twocents:
I think a jury trial could likely go either way. If a jury hears that wdfw employees gave the okay, then they are likely to side with the defendant. He's got a lot of money invested in tags this year and probably not many years of hunting left in him, so that is probably why he doesn't take a deal.
He just had to drag it out until after September, but now that the judge is saying no more hunting I wonder what he will do? I would think he can still hunt his out-of-state hunts until after it goes to court though, so maybe he will still drag it out until he can hunt the out-of-state tags he has. :dunno:
Reichert's attorney insisted that a hunting partner of Reichert's obtained permission for them to hunt Bullwinkle from state wildlife officials.
Remember calling fish and game to get clarification on a grey area and I thought I remember my call being recorded :dunno:I called the enforcement desk back in January to ask them a question and before they answered there was a recording that said, "this call may be monitored or recorded...".
If the “friend” were someone in the business of guiding and outfitting, then perhaps a judge could be convinced that a reasonable person would be justified in believing his advice about the legality of the hunt. However, if the “friend” is nothing more than an acquaintance who doesn’t guide for a living then I believe a hunter should clearly do his own research on what is, and what is not legal.
I also saw this on the news this morning.I think a jury trial could likely go either way. If a jury hears that wdfw employees gave the okay, then they are likely to side with the defendant. He's got a lot of money invested in tags this year and probably not many years of hunting left in him, so that is probably why he doesn't take a deal.
He just had to drag it out until after September, but now that the judge is saying no more hunting I wonder what he will do? I would think he can still hunt his out-of-state hunts until after it goes to court though, so maybe he will still drag it out until he can hunt the out-of-state tags he has. :dunno:
I heard that it was reported this morning that WDFW denies having given him permission to kill that bull.
Hmmmm!
Time to move after 52 pages :chuckle:
fishingTime to move after 52 pages :chuckle:
3rd time it's been moved. Where have you been?
Time to move after 52 pages :chuckle:
3rd time it's been moved. Where have you been?
fishingTime to move after 52 pages :chuckle:
3rd time it's been moved. Where have you been?
Time to move after 52 pages :chuckle:
3rd time it's been moved. Where have you been?
Are you talking about the bull, or this thread?...
Sounds like he's screwed.
He broke the law, killed a bull in an area he wasn't allowed to.
His defense that someone told him it was ok isn't flying.....and the defenders on this site have gone quiet. :tup:
But come on this is Hunt-WA where every statement made on here is the truth!!! :chuckle:Sounds like he's screwed.Who you going to believe, a bunch of new members who magically appear and basically only post in the defense of someone who has already been convicted of lying?
He broke the law, killed a bull in an area he wasn't allowed to.
His defense that someone told him it was ok isn't flying.....and the defenders on this site have gone quiet. :tup:
LOL
But come on this is Hunt-WA where every statement made on here is the truth!!! :chuckle:Sounds like he's screwed.Who you going to believe, a bunch of new members who magically appear and basically only post in the defense of someone who has already been convicted of lying?
He broke the law, killed a bull in an area he wasn't allowed to.
His defense that someone told him it was ok isn't flying.....and the defenders on this site have gone quiet. :tup:
LOL
Sounds like he's screwed.
He broke the law, killed a bull in an area he wasn't allowed to.
His defense that someone told him it was ok isn't flying.....and the defenders on this site have gone quiet. :tup:
Who you going to believe, a bunch of new members who magically appear and basically only post in the defense of someone who has already been convicted of lying?
LOL
Lots of good questions to answer here with this new info.
He now has a condition of release to not hunt. This is not just in WA, but would be a condition anywhere in the world as part of his release in this case. If he did hunt, he would violate conditions of release and the judge could set bail or take him in custody while the case is pending. That puts out the fact that he likely will not hunt until this matter is resolved.
He did not turn down the Stay of Proceedings. He continued the pre-trial scheduling conference. He can likely still accept the Stay at a later date or try and negotiate the conditions. One of the conditions is that he not hunt. This would likely be anywhere unless he negotiated something different with the prosecutor. That means he likely will not be hunting up until he enters a deal and likely won't hunt if he takes the deal on the table. Anywhere!
Unless the Stay is negotiated differently, the only way he is going to use his 2016 tag is if he goes to trial and is acquitted before the season is up. I think the deal is a good one, and he should think about entering it in July. First, the Stay prevents him from having a conviction on his record. There will be no further hunting consequences after the year is up. The one year provision starts when he enters the Stay/deal so July or August. He would not be able to use his tag this year but could hunt in time for the 2017 season. If he drags this out past this hunting season and ends up getting convicted or accepts the Stay in January, he would miss the 2016 and 2017 season. There is benefit to entering this deal sooner rather than later. The 12k is nothing for him.
With the scrutiny of a trial, I don't think anyone would want that. The benefit of a trial is he could try and walk on the case. He has a guaranteed dismissal through the Stay but the no hunting condition might be important to him. If he went to trial and was convicted, the loss of hunting rights would extend likely to the states that give reciprocal suspensions. It's a good legal question whether he could hunt in another country like Canada under the conviction scenario... He would likely be able to buy a license but would he violate the sentence by hunting in Canada? I don't know the answer to that question but will look into it.
If he then wants to sue the WDFW or individuals based on the advise they gave him for the 12k and attorney fees plus loss of reputation, so be it.
How would it affect all the record book entries?it doesn't
Pope do you know if there was any property or antlers seized? Or does he have to be found guilty before he has to forfeit the antlers?
If they know where it is they will seize it. You have to get a warrant for it. I dont know if it's seized but it would seem they would if they know where it is.
I hope the judge drops the fine, but raises the loss of hunting to 6-10 years. A 12k fine for a guy who pays 75k for an elk tag is pointless.A one year loss of hunting privileges for a 76 year old with cancer may represent a significant portion of his remaining hunting opportunities: perhaps like a ten year suspension for someone in his 40s or 50s. :twocents:
If they know where it is they will seize it. You have to get a warrant for it. I dont know if it's seized but it would seem they would if they know where it is.
Is it assumed that they are hiding or being hidden? I don't feel that's the case at all, but then again have no idea about pretty much everything relating to this case.
Why?
What kind of evidence is that?
The exact bull and the exact location are not at issue in this case.
He killed a tame bull in a farmer's field--that one sentence says it all.
If Bullwinkle identified as a cow would it be legal to shoot it in the unit hunted?I believe this defense is on the table, not their first choice but I think it is an option if they get to that point. :chuckle:
If Bullwinkle identified as a cow would it be legal to shoot it in the unit hunted?
Would he have to identify as a spike?If Bullwinkle identified as a cow would it be legal to shoot it in the unit hunted?
Not with the tag in question.
:yeah: It's not a question of what kind of animal would be legal, that tag just plain isn't good for anything in that GMU. The argument a few pages back about what makes a spike vs a branch antler bull would only be a valid argument for the general season tag, not the raffle tag.If Bullwinkle identified as a cow would it be legal to shoot it in the unit hunted?
Not with the tag in question.
Would he have to identify as a spike?If Bullwinkle identified as a cow would it be legal to shoot it in the unit hunted?
Not with the tag in question.
The raffle tag wasn't valid in that unit. Period.So the entire unit would have to self identify as 328, that might be a bit of a stretch.
It's no different than if he had used the same tag on a bull elk in Arizona.
What if the bull self identified as a spike that day?The raffle tag wasn't valid in that unit. Period.So the entire unit would have to self identify as 328, that might be a bit of a stretch.
It's no different than if he had used the same tag on a bull elk in Arizona.
What if the bull self identified as a spike that day?The raffle tag wasn't valid in that unit. Period.So the entire unit would have to self identify as 328, that might be a bit of a stretch.
It's no different than if he had used the same tag on a bull elk in Arizona.
Hey! Welcome Back Everyone!!! What's this thread about???It appears as though a branched antler bull was killed in a closed unit using a raffle tag.
Hey! Welcome Back Everyone!!! What's this thread about???It appears as though a branched antler bull was killed in a closed unit using a raffle tag.
These are the facts, they can't be disputed. There is a bunch of other sidenotes but those can't be confirmed at this time. There is a pending court case, not sure that will clear anything up though.
Way to stir the pot Dave. :stirthepot:
Yep, same story, we just keep moving it around to keep it fresh.Hey! Welcome Back Everyone!!! What's this thread about???It appears as though a branched antler bull was killed in a closed unit using a raffle tag.
These are the facts, they can't be disputed. There is a bunch of other sidenotes but those can't be confirmed at this time. There is a pending court case, not sure that will clear anything up though.
Way to stir the pot Dave. :stirthepot:
Oh, THAT story. The poor guy has cancer! Leave him alone already!
One thing is for sure:That sounds a little judgmental to me.
Most (NOT ALL!!!) participants in this particular thread self identify as Judge, Jury, and Executioner.
What if TR self identifies as a Native American? :dunno: He should try that one in court. :chuckle:
What if TR self identifies as a Native American? :dunno: He should try that one in court. :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:What if TR self identifies as a Native American? :dunno: He should try that one in court. :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Stop laughing at my uncle... :'( it's not funny >:( he's a muck okay, he can hunt there as long as a Yakama don't catch him. :chuckle:
No one needs to find this stuff. The judge could order them surrendered at any time as evidence.
i would imagine they would be at the taxi like most trophy's. Kinda hard to give them up if there not in your possession. :dunno:No one needs to find this stuff. The judge could order them surrendered at any time as evidence.
No, the judge can't unless convicted and he admits he possesses them. Can you imagine in an illegal possession of a gun case the judge ordering someone to give them the gun and evidence?
Something about a guy that has to hide his bone... :peep:i would imagine they would be at the taxi like most trophy's. Kinda hard to give them up if there not in your possession. :dunno:No one needs to find this stuff. The judge could order them surrendered at any time as evidence.
No, the judge can't unless convicted and he admits he possesses them. Can you imagine in an illegal possession of a gun case the judge ordering someone to give them the gun and evidence?
What if TR self identifies as a Native American? :dunno: He should try that one in court. :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Stop laughing at my uncle... :'( it's not funny >:( he's a muck okay, he can hunt there as long as a Yakama don't catch him. :chuckle:
What if TR self identifies as a Native American? :dunno: He should try that one in court. :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Stop laughing at my uncle... :'( it's not funny >:( he's a muck okay, he can hunt there as long as a Yakama don't catch him. :chuckle:
Hey I want in on this plat.
We're blood brothers, you're from the Marine tribe, I'm from the Naval Tribe. So you can get me in on the land side of hunting all creatures, I can get you in all fisheries side of the house, plus water mammals hunting. :tup: :chuckle:
No judge can stop us, to hell with all the rules were NDNs. :lol4: :peep:
What if TR self identifies as a Native American? :dunno: He should try that one in court. :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Stop laughing at my uncle... :'( it's not funny >:( he's a muck okay, he can hunt there as long as a Yakama don't catch him. :chuckle:
Hey I want in on this plat.
We're blood brothers, you're from the Marine tribe, I'm from the Naval Tribe. So you can get me in on the land side of hunting all creatures, I can get you in all fisheries side of the house, plus water mammals hunting. :tup: :chuckle:
No judge can stop us, to hell with all the rules were NDNs. :lol4: :peep:
Boss, I thought you were from the Aviator tribe, that would make you a half breed if your from the Naval tribe.
Pretty good combo you got there. :tup: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
What if TR self identifies as a Native American? :dunno: He should try that one in court. :chuckle:
LMAO
:chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Stop laughing at my uncle... :'( it's not funny >:( he's a muck okay, he can hunt there as long as a Yakama don't catch him. :chuckle:
What unit was this bull shot in?sheep unit 19. :chuckle:
:o who's tipi-creepin'???
I heard this bull was shot with a muzzleloader, so it's ok.
You can all go about your business.
I heard this bull was shot with a muzzleloader, so it's ok.
You can all go about your business.
Geeezzzz, why didn't you tell us that 55 pages ago. :hunt2:
I heard this bull was shot with a muzzleloader, so it's ok.
You can all go about your business.
Geeezzzz, why didn't you tell us that 55 pages ago. :hunt2:
You mean 2 threads ago
Hopefully the judge is a member here so he can get the facts from this thread and make a good judgement without even giving him a day in court! :dunno:
This thread, by itself, not even considering the multiple other threads on the subject that have been deleted, is clearly more legendary, relevant, and intellectual than the bigfoot thread. It's in a league all it's own. This, I declare. :whoo:
I've stayed off this thread but now I may have to get involved >:(
He very well could be...He has done his part just like a biggie to cull the elk herds of the trophy bulls. But....I believe deerhunter_98520 is stepping into the ring as some have attempted to say this sorry excuse of a topic is any where near the factual, undisputed seriousness, undebatable topic as the BF thread. >:(
:yeah:
>:( >:( >:(
I read the case report and officers notes, sounds like Reichert is now going to be going with the "ignorance defense".
I read the case report and officers notes, sounds like Reichert is now going to be going with the "ignorance defense".
Could it be posted?
:yeah:I read the case report and officers notes, sounds like Reichert is now going to be going with the "ignorance defense".
Could it be posted?
Not sure that's something Dale is going to want. Please don't for now. I'll report back.
:yeah:I read the case report and officers notes, sounds like Reichert is now going to be going with the "ignorance defense".
Could it be posted?
Not sure that's something Dale is going to want. Please don't for now. I'll report back.
There is a second court date set, I think it is July 26th then a trial date has been set for the beginning of August.
My guess is they will make a deal before the July date, go in front of the judge on the 26th and present the deal to the judge, judge will agree and it will be all over.
Whatever is in that report will just muddy the waters before the next court date.
I think it is best at this point to just let the court system run its course and see what happens. All of the facts are out there a decision just needs to be made.
He has two big ticket tags coming up for this next season and with the restrictions in place he has to get this cleared up to move forward with those hunts. This thing isn't going to drag out. We will all know soon enough what the verdict is and then can debate it at length.
Posting the report in my opinion would just create a bunch of headaches for the site owner. :twocents:
I read the case report and officers notes, sounds like Reichert is now going to be going with the "ignorance defense".
I read the case report and officers notes, sounds like Reichert is now going to be going with the "ignorance defense".
Epic tease, kinda like a high school girl at a dance. :chuckle:
I read the case report and officers notes, sounds like Reichert is now going to be going with the "ignorance defense".
Epic tease, kinda like a high school girl at a dance. :chuckle:
Not even close. Tell me if you've heard this, "I've got pics but can't share them..." then goes on to describe said pics like we care cuz it's not the same. :dunno: :chuckle:
This whole issue is like a gun free zone.....
How many muzzleloaders does it take to kill a pet bull in the field? Lol:chuckle:
How many muzzleloaders does it take to kill a pet bull in the field? Lol:chuckle:
Being the guy probably doesn't load them himself had his minions hold 4 or 5 in the background at the ready for him. :o
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
You have to insure it drops quickly so it won't run into a closed GMU.How many muzzleloaders does it take to kill a pet bull in the field? Lol:chuckle:
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
You have to insure it drops quickly so it won't run into a closed GMU.How many muzzleloaders does it take to kill a pet bull in the field? Lol:chuckle:
;)You have to insure it drops quickly so it won't run into a closed GMU.How many muzzleloaders does it take to kill a pet bull in the field? Lol:chuckle:
Don't you mean into a "open" GMU? :chuckle:
Does that include an open unit?.... I mean closed unit. Dang it Bob
I-594Does 594 apply to muzzle-loaders since you don't need a background check when you buy one
I wonder how that works. I have to admit I've never utilized a gun bearer before.
"Transfers to hunters who are 18 and older are only exempt if they take place while engaged in hunting, and only if the firearm is possessed by the transferee solely in locations where hunting is permissible.”
Does that include an open unit?.... I mean closed unit. Dang it Bob
I-594
I wonder how that works. I have to admit I've never utilized a gun bearer before.
"Transfers to hunters who are 18 and older are only exempt if they take place while engaged in hunting, and only if the firearm is possessed by the transferee solely in locations where hunting is permissible.”
Does that include an open unit?.... I mean closed unit. Dang it Bob
I don't see how it applies!
Does 594 apply to muzzle-loaders since you don't need a background check when you buy one
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I-594Does 594 apply to muzzle-loaders since you don't need a background check when you buy one
I wonder how that works. I have to admit I've never utilized a gun bearer before.
"Transfers to hunters who are 18 and older are only exempt if they take place while engaged in hunting, and only if the firearm is possessed by the transferee solely in locations where hunting is permissible.”
Does that include an open unit?.... I mean closed unit. Dang it Bob
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
In Washington muzzleloaders (except a few antiques) are considered firearms and are subject to I594 restrictions.That is interesting. But you can still go on muzzle-loaders.com and order one to your door with out a background check, but then if you wanna sell it you got to get one.
In Washington muzzleloaders (except a few antiques) are considered firearms and are subject to I594 restrictions.
The definition of a firearm is found here: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010In Washington muzzleloaders (except a few antiques) are considered firearms and are subject to I594 restrictions.
Thanks for clarification Bob, that's good for everyone to know, do you have a link to that info? :tup:
TVHunts, that was a good one! :chuckle:
I-594
I wonder how that works. I have to admit I've never utilized a gun bearer before.
"Transfers to hunters who are 18 and older are only exempt if they take place while engaged in hunting, and only if the firearm is possessed by the transferee solely in locations where hunting is permissible.”
Does that include an open unit?.... I mean closed unit. Dang it Bob
OK, I have to break my silence. So did he intend to go hunting w/a golf bag full of a half dozen capped and loaded shootin' irons?
How far did the bull travel after the first shot?One whole GMU.
How far did the bull travel after the first shot?One whole GMU.
I'd like to know what everyone would do if they were in a similar situation? Would u fight it? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? To me it sounds like they made an attempt to do it legally. Was it intentional or un intentional?
I'd like to know what everyone would do if they were in a similar situation? Would u fight it? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? To me it sounds like they made an attempt to do it legally. Was it intentional or un intentional?
How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?
I'd like to know what everyone would do if they were in a similar situation? Would u fight it? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? To me it sounds like they made an attempt to do it legally. Was it intentional or un intentional?I wouldn't put myself in that situation to begin with. I'd read the reg's, see the unit was off limits to me(It's clear as daylight that the GMU is closed to branch antlered bulls. There's nothing confusing or misleading at all about it) and hunt somewhere else.
I'd like to know what everyone would do if they were in a similar situation? Would u fight it? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? To me it sounds like they made an attempt to do it legally. Was it intentional or un intentional?
Exactly most of these guys pumped hunters are getting a bad rap. Hunters need to unite and stand up for one another. I'm pretty sure these s a few anti s on here stiring the pot.
How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?two years ago with my peaches tag. I have had a cow tag for the past three seasons and have chose to help other people on there hunts instead of harvesting an elk myself. I have a buddy who has one of the most desired rut tags in the state in the state this year. So I will eat another cow tag :chuckle: Not that I owe you an explanation. But there it is.
How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?two years ago with my peaches tag. I have had a cow tag for the past three seasons and have chose to help other people on there hunts instead of harvesting an elk myself. I have a buddy who has one of the most desired rut tags in the state in the state this year. So I will eat another cow tag :chuckle: Not that I owe you an explanation. But there it is.
And just a note, just because you kill something, or buy an animal it doesn't make you a "Hunter".
How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?
no I hunt for elk every year. It's just not always for my tag. I get more enjoyment out of helping people than harvesting myself. If tr would have asked for my help he probably would have gotten it free of charge.How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?two years ago with my peaches tag. I have had a cow tag for the past three seasons and have chose to help other people on there hunts instead of harvesting an elk myself. I have a buddy who has one of the most desired rut tags in the state in the state this year. So I will eat another cow tag :chuckle: Not that I owe you an explanation. But there it is.
So you only actually hunt elk when you draw bull/quality tag. Explains why you are so jealous of TR. also I think TR s lawyer needs to look into see if any of the landowners in 334 have bull nuisance tags. I know one guy who gets 5 bull tags a year.
How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?
That explains some things. :rolleyes:And just a note, just because you kill something, or buy an animal it doesn't make you a "Hunter".
Does in my book. Same thing with fishing if you aren't catching it's just a boat ride.
How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?two years ago with my peaches tag. I have had a cow tag for the past three seasons and have chose to help other people on there hunts instead of harvesting an elk myself. I have a buddy who has one of the most desired rut tags in the state in the state this year. So I will eat another cow tag :chuckle: Not that I owe you an explanation. But there it is.
So you only actually hunt elk when you draw bull/quality tag. Explains why you are so jealous of TR. also I think TR s lawyer needs to look into see if any of the landowners in 334 have bull nuisance tags. I know one guy who gets 5 bull tags a year.
And just a note, just because you kill something, or buy an animal it doesn't make you a "Hunter".
Does in my book. Same thing with fishing if you aren't catching it's just a boat ride.
How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?
You sound desperate and severely lacking in ethics - personal opinion. It makes no difference when someone last shot an elk. It matters when they last purchased a license, hunted for anything, and did it legally and ethically. A vast majority of people posting on this forum (and it seems most on this thread), favor and support legal hunting, even without being able to afford a $50K tag. Many of us also don't mind the auction and lotto tags because of their conservation value. What we find abhorrent are people who, some because of their wealth or position, ignore hunting laws as if they're above them. I personally also find those who justify the illegal actions of poachers as abhorrent. Cast all of the dispersion you wish. Your position is untenable.
I don't think these testosterone type of public discussions about who is more of a hunter are good for hunting. Essentially anyone who buys a hunting license is a "hunter"! Some hunters depending on their experience and/or available time, connections, or simple luck may be more successful than others, but we are all hunters if we buy a hunting license and follow the law! :twocents::yeah:
Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 gramsMy guess is most if caught with an arrow 10 grams under weight would argue that it was a simple mistake but take the ticket and move on if the officer wrote them up. They might take it to court and try to get it reduced but in the end technically they broke the rules.
Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 grams
Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 grams
Wait, it's a minimum 430gr now?
When did they change it from 6gr. per pound of draw weight?
Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 gramsMy guess is most if caught with an arrow 10 grams under weight would argue that it was a simple mistake but take the ticket and move on if the officer wrote them up. They might take it to court and try to get it reduced but in the end technically they broke the rules.
Hunting the old muzzleloader 911 years ago someone pushed a herd of elk out of the ML911 area across the road we were driving out on. The elk stopped on the left side of the road and we didn't shoot. The elk were out of the area by 60 feet. Could we have shot and said we shot on the correct side of the road and it died on the opposite side? Yes, but if we were going to do that why wouldn't we just shoot one way out of bounds and out of everyone's view? Same thing, out of bounds is out of bounds.
Would it be ethical if you shot an elk in a legal area but it was injured and ran into a non leagal area to finish it off.
Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 gramsCan you explain why anyone would or could want to hunt with a 6600 grain arrow? :dunno:
Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 grams
Wait, it's a minimum 430gr now?
When did they change it from 6gr. per pound of draw weight?
No just an example
What we teach in hunter education is to call enforcement and let them know what has happened before entering the closed area. Way easier to explain what happened and much more believable when you call versus having someone else report seeing you in a closed area and then trying to explain to enforcement what happened. Same applies if you shoot it on private/public land that you have access to and it dies on private land that you don't have access to. Call enforcement.Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 gramsMy guess is most if caught with an arrow 10 grams under weight would argue that it was a simple mistake but take the ticket and move on if the officer wrote them up. They might take it to court and try to get it reduced but in the end technically they broke the rules.
Hunting the old muzzleloader 911 years ago someone pushed a herd of elk out of the ML911 area across the road we were driving out on. The elk stopped on the left side of the road and we didn't shoot. The elk were out of the area by 60 feet. Could we have shot and said we shot on the correct side of the road and it died on the opposite side? Yes, but if we were going to do that why wouldn't we just shoot one way out of bounds and out of everyone's view? Same thing, out of bounds is out of bounds.
Would it be ethical if you shot an elk in a legal area but it was injured and ran into a non leagal area to finish it off.
What we teach in hunter education is to call enforcement and let them know what has happened before entering the closed area. Way easier to explain what happened and much more believable when you call versus having someone else report seeing you in a closed area and then trying to explain to enforcement what happened. Same applies if you shoot it on private/public land that you have access to and it dies on private land that you don't have access to. Call enforcement.Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 gramsMy guess is most if caught with an arrow 10 grams under weight would argue that it was a simple mistake but take the ticket and move on if the officer wrote them up. They might take it to court and try to get it reduced but in the end technically they broke the rules.
Hunting the old muzzleloader 911 years ago someone pushed a herd of elk out of the ML911 area across the road we were driving out on. The elk stopped on the left side of the road and we didn't shoot. The elk were out of the area by 60 feet. Could we have shot and said we shot on the correct side of the road and it died on the opposite side? Yes, but if we were going to do that why wouldn't we just shoot one way out of bounds and out of everyone's view? Same thing, out of bounds is out of bounds.
Would it be ethical if you shot an elk in a legal area but it was injured and ran into a non leagal area to finish it off.
I'd say TR is definitely not innocent. He shot an elk in a closed unit. That is an undisputed fact.
Now, whether or not he ends up having to pay the price for the crime is another thing. By calling wdfw and asking about firearm restrictions in the Ellensburg unit, they did cast a gray area on the case. They may have found a scapegoat in the wdfw employee that answered their question about being ok to shoot an elk with a muzzleloader.
I guess the question that a judge or jury will likely have to think about is whether TR and his accomplices knew the rules and were just trying to find a way around them by calling wdfw and hoping to get someone that didn't know the specific rules for that permit.
They might also have to think about how the rules are worded. I do think it would leave less room for confusion when the rules didn't say "Any 300 or 500 series GMU open to elk hunting, except GMU's not open to branch antlered bull elk hunting". Instead, why not just list the couple of GMU's that are off-limits? That would help the officers being called and asked the question instead of them having to look for 20 minutes to see if there are any branch bull hunting in the unit.
I would think he would have a decent chance at being found not guilty in court. But I wouldn't bet on it either. :twocents: And even if he is found not guilty sure doesn't mean he is innocent........just means the court found mitigating circumstances to let him get away with it.
(That's my 2 cents. I'm nobody though, so my 2 cents is not worth much. My opinion is only based on what I've read on the court of Hunt-Wa and Incident Report by WDFW). And BTW - I'm in no way jealous.....not the least bit jealous in any way. Just an interesting case to me so I'm following along.)
I'd say TR is definitely not innocent. He shot an elk in a closed unit. That is an undisputed fact.
Now, whether or not he ends up having to pay the price for the crime is another thing. By calling wdfw and asking about firearm restrictions in the Ellensburg unit, they did cast a gray area on the case. They may have found a scapegoat in the wdfw employee that answered their question about being ok to shoot an elk with a muzzleloader.
I guess the question that a judge or jury will likely have to think about is whether TR and his accomplices knew the rules and were just trying to find a way around them by calling wdfw and hoping to get someone that didn't know the specific rules for that permit.
They might also have to think about how the rules are worded. I do think it would leave less room for confusion when the rules didn't say "Any 300 or 500 series GMU open to elk hunting, except GMU's not open to branch antlered bull elk hunting". Instead, why not just list the couple of GMU's that are off-limits? That would help the officers being called and asked the question instead of them having to look for 20 minutes to see if there are any branch bull hunting in the unit.
I would think he would have a decent chance at being found not guilty in court. But I wouldn't bet on it either. :twocents: And even if he is found not guilty sure doesn't mean he is innocent........just means the court found mitigating circumstances to let him get away with it.
(That's my 2 cents. I'm nobody though, so my 2 cents is not worth much. My opinion is only based on what I've read on the court of Hunt-Wa and Incident Report by WDFW). And BTW - I'm in no way jealous.....not the least bit jealous in any way. Just an interesting case to me so I'm following along.)
Again Curly, they never asked the only relevant question surrounding this entire case, "is it legal to kill a branched antler bull in GMU334?"
Any other question or discussion is pure window dressing! :twocents:
after this case, I'd guess they would forward you on to some legal beagle in Olympia to handle all the phoned in questions. I can't imagine why.....What we teach in hunter education is to call enforcement and let them know what has happened before entering the closed area. Way easier to explain what happened and much more believable when you call versus having someone else report seeing you in a closed area and then trying to explain to enforcement what happened. Same applies if you shoot it on private/public land that you have access to and it dies on private land that you don't have access to. Call enforcement.Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 gramsMy guess is most if caught with an arrow 10 grams under weight would argue that it was a simple mistake but take the ticket and move on if the officer wrote them up. They might take it to court and try to get it reduced but in the end technically they broke the rules.
Hunting the old muzzleloader 911 years ago someone pushed a herd of elk out of the ML911 area across the road we were driving out on. The elk stopped on the left side of the road and we didn't shoot. The elk were out of the area by 60 feet. Could we have shot and said we shot on the correct side of the road and it died on the opposite side? Yes, but if we were going to do that why wouldn't we just shoot one way out of bounds and out of everyone's view? Same thing, out of bounds is out of bounds.
Would it be ethical if you shot an elk in a legal area but it was injured and ran into a non leagal area to finish it off.
Call enforcement and ask them if it's legal
Has anyone heard a recording of the phone call? I know I haven't so I can say for sure that the state granted him permission to shoot the bull but as a hunter and Christian I give him the benefit of the doubt.How would the state be trying to screw him when he is the one that broke the law and shot the tame bull?
He's not the first and won't be the last guy the state try's to screw.
I hope the state has to pay him money lots of money.
Hopefully Reichert will sue his guide for leading him down the wrong path.
By giving someone permission and then when a bunch of liberals get there panties in a wad charging him even though they gave him Permission. And shooting a tame bull isn't a crime.Liberals. :chuckle:
Again Curly, they never asked the only relevant question surrounding this entire case, "is it legal to kill a branched antler bull in GMU334?"
Any other question or discussion is pure window dressing! :twocents:
Don't fall victim to their ploy of muddying the waters, nothing else in this entire case matters.
The only question now is, will a judge/jury hold Reichert accountable for not knowing first hand if he could or could not kill a branched antler bull in that unit, claiming ignorance as his defense. "They told me they got permission from WDFW"
Is that a viable excuse?
Has anyone heard a recording of the phone call? I know I haven't so I can say for sure that the state granted him permission to shoot the bull but as a hunter and Christian I give him the benefit of the doubt.Glad to see your Christian view of giving someone the benefit of the doubt extends to everyone, including state employees. :tup:
He's not the first and won't be the last guy the state try's to screw.
I hope the state has to pay him money lots of money.
Actually there is another question regarding this case. Are Dave, Brian and Cody in any way culpable in the case? :dunno:Great question and if not by the WDFW I would bet TR might have an issue with them in maybe a civil case.
If a friend told someone it was OK to speed, or to rob a bank, or to take an illegal drug, and he did and was caught, how is the friend legally culpable?Actually there is another question regarding this case. Are Dave, Brian and Cody in any way culpable in the case? :dunno:Great question and if not by the WDFW I would bet TR might have an issue with them in maybe a civil case.
Not defending anyone just thinking defense angle:
"We were after this specific trophy that we had been scouting but when we got up to the area it turns out the animal had moved across the canal and I was afraid he was outside the area we had researched and knew to be legal. Not expecting to hunt in any nearby areas we didn't bring a copy of the game regs with us so we called the game department to get the quickest answer on whether it was legal with our tag to shoot where he had gone. The Game Dept. guy had to look it up and called back in 15 minutes and said it was legal. We then went and harvested this legal elk." How penalized should we be for the States mistake ?
This could be the story...... or the defense...... ? How will the Judge or Jury choose?
If the friend was getting paid tens of thousands of dollars and he claimed to have gotten permission but really didn't then I would hope that friend would have to at least give the money back. But legally, that may not be the case.......although you can try to sue someone for anything these days, right?If I could sue anyone who ever gave me bad advice and win, I'd be rich.
Not defending anyone just thinking defense angle:
"We were after this specific trophy that we had been scouting but when we got up to the area it turns out the animal had moved across the canal and I was afraid he was outside the area we had researched and knew to be legal. Not expecting to hunt in any nearby areas we didn't bring a copy of the game regs with us so we called the game department to get the quickest answer on whether it was legal with our tag to shoot where he had gone. The Game Dept. guy had to look it up and called back in 15 minutes and said it was legal. We then went and harvested this legal elk." How penalized should we be for the States mistake ?
This could be the story...... or the defense...... ? How will the Judge or Jury choose?
How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?
If the friend was getting paid tens of thousands of dollars and he claimed to have gotten permission but really didn't then I would hope that friend would have to at least give the money back. But legally, that may not be the case.......although you can try to sue someone for anything these days, right?If I could sue anyone who ever gave me bad advice and win, I'd be rich.
The report however is not the holy grail. I am sure there is a side to the story that hasn't been seen just yet. The scenario above could be his defense and he could have something that backs it up. I would have thought it would be in the report but still the report is just one view of the events. My guess is during negotiations more information will be presented on the defense side of things.Not defending anyone just thinking defense angle:
"We were after this specific trophy that we had been scouting but when we got up to the area it turns out the animal had moved across the canal and I was afraid he was outside the area we had researched and knew to be legal. Not expecting to hunt in any nearby areas we didn't bring a copy of the game regs with us so we called the game department to get the quickest answer on whether it was legal with our tag to shoot where he had gone. The Game Dept. guy had to look it up and called back in 15 minutes and said it was legal. We then went and harvested this legal elk." How penalized should we be for the States mistake ?
This could be the story...... or the defense...... ? How will the Judge or Jury choose?
Thats a nice story, but not close to the report, which I'm sure will be posted by someone at some point.
Scroll back to #1461, that's basically what it's going to come down to. ;)
The report however is not the holy grail. I am sure there is a side to the story that hasn't been seen just yet. The scenario above could be his defense and he could have something that backs it up. I would have thought it would be in the report but still the report is just one view of the events. My guess is during negotiations more information will be presented on the defense side of things.Not defending anyone just thinking defense angle:
"We were after this specific trophy that we had been scouting but when we got up to the area it turns out the animal had moved across the canal and I was afraid he was outside the area we had researched and knew to be legal. Not expecting to hunt in any nearby areas we didn't bring a copy of the game regs with us so we called the game department to get the quickest answer on whether it was legal with our tag to shoot where he had gone. The Game Dept. guy had to look it up and called back in 15 minutes and said it was legal. We then went and harvested this legal elk." How penalized should we be for the States mistake ?
This could be the story...... or the defense...... ? How will the Judge or Jury choose?
Thats a nice story, but not close to the report, which I'm sure will be posted by someone at some point.
Scroll back to #1461, that's basically what it's going to come down to. ;)
You would think. That being said this thing has taken so many twists and turns that I never saw coming I have a hard time ruling anything out at this point.The report however is not the holy grail. I am sure there is a side to the story that hasn't been seen just yet. The scenario above could be his defense and he could have something that backs it up. I would have thought it would be in the report but still the report is just one view of the events. My guess is during negotiations more information will be presented on the defense side of things.Not defending anyone just thinking defense angle:
"We were after this specific trophy that we had been scouting but when we got up to the area it turns out the animal had moved across the canal and I was afraid he was outside the area we had researched and knew to be legal. Not expecting to hunt in any nearby areas we didn't bring a copy of the game regs with us so we called the game department to get the quickest answer on whether it was legal with our tag to shoot where he had gone. The Game Dept. guy had to look it up and called back in 15 minutes and said it was legal. We then went and harvested this legal elk." How penalized should we be for the States mistake ?
This could be the story...... or the defense...... ? How will the Judge or Jury choose?
Thats a nice story, but not close to the report, which I'm sure will be posted by someone at some point.
Scroll back to #1461, that's basically what it's going to come down to. ;)
True, however after following this and a couple other threads on the subject, I'm confident that had there been a critical piece of evidence that exonerated Richert, Kiti, 257 or one of the other Reichert apologists surely would have played that card. :twocents:
How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?
...........................at this point, who cares !!!!
Here Kiti Kiti,
Here Kiti Kiti Kiti, where are you???
Seems that HW has lost our Kiti. :dunno:
Maybe his 257 backfired and went boom
:dunno: :chuckle: 8)
...........................at this point, who cares !!!!
Hey...... I care.
(said in my Luke Skywalker accent)
How many people on this thread harvested an elk last year. I'm thinking most of you guys are just internet jockey s who like hunters to get black eyes in media. My question is for JD and tennawayslayer and davemonti when's the last time you guys shot an elk?two years ago with my peaches tag. I have had a cow tag for the past three seasons and have chose to help other people on there hunts instead of harvesting an elk myself. I have a buddy who has one of the most desired rut tags in the state in the state this year. So I will eat another cow tag :chuckle: Not that I owe you an explanation. But there it is.
So you only actually hunt elk when you draw bull/quality tag. Explains why you are so jealous of TR. also I think TR s lawyer needs to look into see if any of the landowners in 334 have bull nuisance tags. I know one guy who gets 5 bull tags a year.
Here Kiti Kiti,
Here Kiti Kiti Kiti, where are you???
Seems that HW has lost our Kiti. :dunno:
Maybe his 257 backfired and went boom
:dunno: :chuckle: 8)
I would like to throw some money in the "Kiti" and wager that this will all be very "clear" real soon! :tup:
You internet "elk less" jockeys need to hold on to your city slicker panties and let justice prevail! What is wrong with you anyway? Why, you couldn't shoot a tame elk in a farmers field and move it to another legal unit if your life depended on it!
You Losers :hunt2:
Not defending anyone just thinking defense angle:
"We were after this specific trophy that we had been scouting but when we got up to the area it turns out the animal had moved across the canal and I was afraid he was outside the area we had researched and knew to be legal. Not expecting to hunt in any nearby areas we didn't bring a copy of the game regs with us so we called the game department to get the quickest answer on whether it was legal with our tag to shoot where he had gone. The Game Dept. guy had to look it up and called back in 15 minutes and said it was legal. We then went and harvested this legal elk." How penalized should we be for the States mistake ?
This could be the story...... or the defense...... ? How will the Judge or Jury choose?
Pretty sure it was shot the day after the phone call. That defense will not fly.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: it's a pet folks. Now let's take the drive and determination this thread brought out and apply it to something meaningful, such as the idaho incident or something else of meaning. :dunno: just sayin' :dunno:
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: it's a pet folks. Now let's take the drive and determination this thread brought out and apply it to something meaningful, such as the idaho incident or something else of meaning. :dunno: just sayin' :dunno:
Plat,
Just what is the "Idaho incident"? Where can I read about it? I need something new and entertaining to read.
It's been posted on here several times. Check the off - topics area.
The legend of Bullwinkle may out live the legend of Jesus at this rate.ok you lost me on that one. Makes no sense.
Trying to get it back to off topics. :dunno: :bdid:The legend of Bullwinkle may out live the legend of Jesus at this rate.ok you lost me on that one. Makes no sense.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: it's a pet folks. Now let's take the drive and determination this thread brought out and apply it to something meaningful, such as the idaho incident or something else of meaning. :dunno: just sayin' :dunno:
It's in off topics, nothing to do with elk or hunting.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: it's a pet folks. Now let's take the drive and determination this thread brought out and apply it to something meaningful, such as the idaho incident or something else of meaning. :dunno: just sayin' :dunno:
I work too much... So what happened in Idaho?
Any new news? :dunno:Once his wire transfer to the Clinton Foundation shows, his charges should be dropped..... :sry:
The tread got quiet once Dan-O went on vacation.
The defense attorney has filed a motion to lift the pre-trial release condition of "no hunting" and to dismiss the case. Presumably they want to use the tag he has for this year. Not sure of the reasoning of the motion to dismiss but it would be interesting to read. It has not been set for a hearing or anything to decide the issue but it seems the prosecutor must have input on this and be given time to respond. Possibly it's addressed at the next hearing or a motions date gets set.i thought the judge already turned there request down?
Ok, commence the BS posts Dan-O and gang for a while... :chuckle:
I'm baaaaa-aaaaaaack! :hello:
It feels good to be missed.
I'm baaaaa-aaaaaaack! :hello:
It feels good to be missed.
YOU WERE GONE? :chuckle:
I'm baaaaa-aaaaaaack! :hello:
It feels good to be missed.
YOU WERE GONE? :chuckle:
Dude, why do you think the thread faded?
That's right........ I AM this thread!
It is ALL ABOUT ME...............oh yeah, and a pet elk died, too.
I'm baaaaa-aaaaaaack! :hello:
It feels good to be missed.
YOU WERE GONE? :chuckle:
Dude, why do you think the thread faded?
That's right........ I AM this thread!
It is ALL ABOUT ME...............oh yeah, and a pet elk died, too.
HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS A PET ELK, DID YOU EVER SEE ANYONE PET IT?
A unit that was closed to what?
Is Rocky OK?
Ahem, Wikipedia says Rocky is a FLYING squirrel, which is NOT an invasive species according to all kinds of fancy Flying Squirrel Range Maps. Please stop spreading misinformation, it really makes one look bad. This thread is better than a pile of false information.
>:(
Ahem, Wikipedia says Rocky is a FLYING squirrel, which is NOT an invasive species according to all kinds of fancy Flying Squirrel Range Maps. Please stop spreading misinformation, it really makes one look bad. This thread is better than a pile of false information.
Western gray, Douglas', red, and flying squirrels are all protected species in Washington (WAC 232-12-011):chuckle:
Ahem, Wikipedia says Rocky is a FLYING squirrel, which is NOT an invasive species according to all kinds of fancy Flying Squirrel Range Maps. Please stop spreading misinformation, it really makes one look bad. This thread is better than a pile of false information.
He may not be invasive but you still can't harm him.QuoteWestern gray, Douglas', red, and flying squirrels are all protected species in Washington (WAC 232-12-011):chuckle:
Ahem, Wikipedia says Rocky is a FLYING squirrel, which is NOT an invasive species according to all kinds of fancy Flying Squirrel Range Maps. Please stop spreading misinformation, it really makes one look bad. This thread is better than a pile of false information.
He may not be invasive but you still can't harm him.QuoteWestern gray, Douglas', red, and flying squirrels are all protected species in Washington (WAC 232-12-011):chuckle:
Both legal animals for me to hun....ummmm....nevermind :chuckle:
It's been quite a while.
Is that elk still dead?
I wonder where the meat is. Did the WDFW confiscate it? One could put on a hell of a supper with all the meat from that bull.
Anyone have any favorite recipes for elk?
That's right, I used the word "supper". Old school.
QuoteI wonder where the meat is. Did the WDFW confiscate it? One could put on a hell of a supper with all the meat from that bull.
Anyone have any favorite recipes for elk?
That's right, I used the word "supper". Old school.
Like my eggs... Poached. :chuckle:
QuoteI wonder where the meat is. Did the WDFW confiscate it? One could put on a hell of a supper with all the meat from that bull.
Anyone have any favorite recipes for elk?
That's right, I used the word "supper". Old school.
Like my eggs... Poached. :chuckle:
QuoteI wonder where the meat is. Did the WDFW confiscate it? One could put on a hell of a supper with all the meat from that bull.
Anyone have any favorite recipes for elk?
That's right, I used the word "supper". Old school.
Like my eggs... Poached. :chuckle:
hahaha nice!
He's dead.
:oQuoteI wonder where the meat is. Did the WDFW confiscate it? One could put on a hell of a supper with all the meat from that bull.
Anyone have any favorite recipes for elk?
That's right, I used the word "supper". Old school.
Like my eggs... Poached. :chuckle:
Pre-trial was reset to July 28. Not sure when they are going to argue the motion to dismiss and to modify conditions. Jury trial date is still set in August so before then presumably.
Pre-trial was reset to July 28. Not sure when they are going to argue the motion to dismiss and to modify conditions. Jury trial date is still set in August so before then presumably.
Modify conditions? As in allow him to hunt until it's settled?
That's a good defense. The regulations are unclear. Those Bulls would have been harvested long ago if the regs were "unclear". :bash:
Wait......Dan, you're not going to be pleased to know who Tod is using to represent him. Sorry.
Was this a bull?
Where was it killed?
Why hasn't this been posted sooner?
I am outraged.
Who is with me?????
Wait......
Was this a bull?
Where was it killed?
Why hasn't this been posted sooner?
I am outraged.
Who is with me?????
Wait......
Was this a bull?
Where was it killed?
Why hasn't this been posted sooner?
I am outraged.
Who is with me?????
Not me, I don't find poaching that funny no matter how long the thread in the subject :twocents:
U have already made it clear u don't care with numerous other posts like this...
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/dismissal-requested-in-bullwinkle-case/article_9d0d52c4-541b-11e6-96d8-0b8324281ae2.htmlHmm, what happened to the "we had special permission from WDFW" defense...? :dunno:
Wait......
Was this a bull?
Where was it killed?
Why hasn't this been posted sooner?
I am outraged.
Who is with me?????
Not me, I don't find poaching that funny no matter how long the thread in the subject :twocents:
U have already made it clear u don't care with numerous other posts like this...
:yeah:
And people wonder why game law violations are not taken seriously. Go figure.
Wait......
Was this a bull?
Where was it killed?
Why hasn't this been posted sooner?
I am outraged.
Who is with me?????
Not me, I don't find poaching that funny no matter how long the thread in the subject :twocents:
U have already made it clear u don't care with numerous other posts like this...
:yeah:
And people wonder why game law violations are not taken seriously. Go figure.
Do the people that post the same dumb posts over and over realize nobody thinks it's funny? I also wonder their employment status is that they have this much time to just post on a website everyday with posts of no value that repeat the same dumb joke over and over? Can mods delete that crap or have them post on a joke post that nobody goes to for information that has value?
Wait......
Was this a bull?
Where was it killed?
Why hasn't this been posted sooner?
I am outraged.
Who is with me?????
Not me, I don't find poaching that funny no matter how long the thread in the subject :twocents:
U have already made it clear u don't care with numerous other posts like this...
:yeah:
And people wonder why game law violations are not taken seriously. Go figure.
Do the people that post the same dumb posts over and over realize nobody thinks it's funny? I also wonder their employment status is that they have this much time to just post on a website everyday with posts of no value that repeat the same dumb joke over and over? Can mods delete that crap or have them post on a joke post that nobody goes to for information that has value?
I don't think that poaching is funny either. Not even a little.
The difference between me and some fo you is that I also don't think that a lynch mob is very funny.
I'm kind of a fan of due process, and internet Kangaroo Courts ARE A JOKE, whether you jurors think so or not.
I don't know the guy from Adam. I wasn't there. Neither were you armchair lynchers.
If he's guilty, throw the book at him.
BUT, until that is determined in court, I think the guy deserves the same benefit of the doubt that I'd give you guys.
Now, please continue with your internet inquisition.......
I will grant you that.
And in the spirit of a harmonious hunt wa, I will try to refrain from sidetracking this thread.
I will try....
Wait......
Was this a bull?
Where was it killed?
Why hasn't this been posted sooner?
I am outraged.
Who is with me?????
Not me, I don't find poaching that funny no matter how long the thread in the subject :twocents:
U have already made it clear u don't care with numerous other posts like this...
:yeah:
And people wonder why game law violations are not taken seriously. Go figure.
Do the people that post the same dumb posts over and over realize nobody thinks it's funny? I also wonder their employment status is that they have this much time to just post on a website everyday with posts of no value that repeat the same dumb joke over and over? Can mods delete that crap or have them post on a joke post that nobody goes to for information that has value?
Wait......
Was this a bull?
Where was it killed?
Why hasn't this been posted sooner?
I am outraged.
Who is with me?????
Not me, I don't find poaching that funny no matter how long the thread in the subject :twocents:
U have already made it clear u don't care with numerous other posts like this...
:yeah:
And people wonder why game law violations are not taken seriously. Go figure.
Do the people that post the same dumb posts over and over realize nobody thinks it's funny? I also wonder their employment status is that they have this much time to just post on a website everyday with posts of no value that repeat the same dumb joke over and over? Can mods delete that crap or have them post on a joke post that nobody goes to for information that has value?
Curious, what does employment status have to do with anyone's posts? You, being a lawyer and all, should know about technology and one's ability to post while on the go. Was that your attempt at trying to belittle someone?
You out of all people should know that you are going to have all sorts of opinions and banter on an open forum. The best part about the "I don't care" posts is it is keeping people engaged and aware of what is happening, whether you like the b.s. posts or not.
Be the bigger person if you have to be, and just look past the irrelevant comments, and be happy more people are actually following what is going on, even if some posts seem irrelevant.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Wait......
Was this a bull?
Where was it killed?
Why hasn't this been posted sooner?
I am outraged.
Who is with me?????
Not me, I don't find poaching that funny no matter how long the thread in the subject :twocents:
U have already made it clear u don't care with numerous other posts like this...
:yeah:
And people wonder why game law violations are not taken seriously. Go figure.
Do the people that post the same dumb posts over and over realize nobody thinks it's funny? I also wonder their employment status is that they have this much time to just post on a website everyday with posts of no value that repeat the same dumb joke over and over? Can mods delete that crap or have them post on a joke post that nobody goes to for information that has value?
Curious, what does employment status have to do with anyone's posts? You, being a lawyer and all, should know about technology and one's ability to post while on the go. Was that your attempt at trying to belittle someone?
You out of all people should know that you are going to have all sorts of opinions and banter on an open forum. The best part about the "I don't care" posts is it is keeping people engaged and aware of what is happening, whether you like the b.s. posts or not.
Be the bigger person if you have to be, and just look past the irrelevant comments, and be happy more people are actually following what is going on, even if some posts seem irrelevant.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
It's very obvious that the constant, all the time, frequent posts indicate one is going back to this thread over and over to ask, "wait, was an elk shot?" and then there is 2-3 pages of BS responding. Most people don't have the time to do that, hence, my jab indicating isn't there something more important or productive to do than mess a thread up? When one comes back to this thread for information on what is going on or substantive opinions on the issue, you have to wade through pages of BS to find the info people want to find. Now the response is they essentially don't like the thread because they think we should all be waiting for due process before discussing the merits of the case and the likely outcomes. It gets frustrating, hence, the jab. If you don't like the thread, it's easy to not look at it and not post.
Some of us are interested in the legal process, motions, and nature of the prosecution and defense. I get constant PM's from people that don't post but want insight on issues or what is happening. That's why I try and post so that people can have the info. Then I have to read another post asking, "what type of elk was it?" and it gets annoying. Sooner or later you swat at the mosquito buzzing around your head. Being an attorney doesn't give me special power to be patient and accept the gnats.
Pope, my opinion of this whole legal process is very jaded because from the start, this "accused poacher" has been handled with kid gloves and seemingly treated very different then say the average hunter.
It just seems so wrong for a judge to "allow" a hunter who has broken hunting laws in the past, been charged, and in the middle of another hunting law violation trial be given the "privilege" to hunt while in the process of the proceedings!
In your experience, is this typical?
That's what I would do. push it back, call in a masher in September, take the deal in October, take a year off, buy the auction tag for 2017 and shoot another masher in the late season, December and never miss a beat.I would hope that you would never be in this situation ;).
Not that he doesn't deserve a punishment if/when a conviction is found I doubt he will be facing jail as he has no prior criminal history as it pertains to poaching. More likely than not, he will have fines, community service, restitution and lengthy probation but I doubt jail time. :dunno:
Not that he doesn't deserve a punishment if/when a conviction is found I doubt he will be facing jail as he has no prior criminal history as it pertains to poaching. More likely than not, he will have fines, community service, restitution and lengthy probation but I doubt jail time. :dunno:
YEP YOU'RE RIGHT, JUST WISHFUL THINKING. :chuckle:
Not that he doesn't deserve a punishment if/when a conviction is found I doubt he will be facing jail as he has no prior criminal history as it pertains to poaching. More likely than not, he will have fines, community service, restitution and lengthy probation but I doubt jail time. :dunno:
YEP YOU'RE RIGHT, JUST WISHFUL THINKING. :chuckle:
Stop yelling at me... :'( you're hurting my feelings... :'(
:chuckle:
HOPEFULLY HES SITTING AT HOME WAITING FOR HIS DAY IN COURT, OR IN A JAIL CELL IF HES CONVICTED OF DOING WHAT HES BEEN CHARGED WITH. :twocents:
HOPEFULLY HES SITTING AT HOME WAITING FOR HIS DAY IN COURT, OR IN A JAIL CELL IF HES CONVICTED OF DOING WHAT HES BEEN CHARGED WITH. :twocents:
look at all the burglars, thieves, habitual dwi's, assault convicts that are let loose because we don't have room to hold them and we want to lock up an old hunter who paid $50k to shoot a bull on property approved by the landowner ?
HOPEFULLY HES SITTING AT HOME WAITING FOR HIS DAY IN COURT, OR IN A JAIL CELL IF HES CONVICTED OF DOING WHAT HES BEEN CHARGED WITH. :twocents:
look at all the burglars, thieves, habitual dwi's, assault convicts that are let loose because we don't have room to hold them and we want to lock up an old hunter who paid $50k to shoot a bull on property approved by the landowner t?
"The state has charged the key witness in Reichert’s defense, David Perkins, with second-degree aiding and abetting, or as a principal, to unlawful hunting. Perkins was Reichert’s disabled hunting companion."Can you (the state) charge a "companion hunter" for aiding? Are they acting as one under the WAC 232-12 definition? If he made the call to the WDFW on behalf of TR is it a strategic move by the prosecutor? I'll be curious to see the employee deposition as to how the situation played out.
LOL, looks like some past posters to this thread, were not being very truthful.
Depends on which story that we have been told you want to believe?It means he can legally assist him, including shooting for him.
We were told he was not his guide. But this article states he was his disabled hunting companion. What does that mean, legally?
So then whose tag went on the elk, wouldn't it have to be the disabled gentleman 's tag and not TR's tag. Based on the WAC he was taking it for the other hunters tag.
So then whose tag went on the elk, wouldn't it have to be the disabled gentleman 's tag and not TR's tag. Based on the WAC he was taking it for the other hunters tag.Reichert had the tag. if Perkins were his legally designed companion, he could within certain guidelines shoot an animal for Reichert. Reichert's tag would go on the animal.
So to what extent are they acting as one and the same under said guidelines? Did the commission have the intent of companions, under certain guidelines, act for and as the "hunter"? Will Grants statement support Perkins?So then whose tag went on the elk, wouldn't it have to be the disabled gentleman 's tag and not TR's tag. Based on the WAC he was taking it for the other hunters tag.Reichert had the tag. if Perkins were his legally designed companion, he could within certain guidelines shoot an animal for Reichert. Reichert's tag would go on the animal.
The companion can do what the WAC allows:So to what extent are they acting as one and the same under said guidelines? Did the commission have the intent of companions, under certain guidelines, act for and as the "hunter"? Will Grants statement support Perkins?So then whose tag went on the elk, wouldn't it have to be the disabled gentleman 's tag and not TR's tag. Based on the WAC he was taking it for the other hunters tag.Reichert had the tag. if Perkins were his legally designed companion, he could within certain guidelines shoot an animal for Reichert. Reichert's tag would go on the animal.
So then whose tag went on the elk, wouldn't it have to be the disabled gentleman 's tag and not TR's tag. Based on the WAC he was taking it for the other hunters tag.
TR is the disabled gentleman.
Keep pushing it out.
At this rate, he'll be able to buy next year's tags and plan on hunting next fall before the trial.
Speaking of time and money......who won the bets earlier made in this topic / thread and who is writing a check for Youth turkey hunt contest?? I am pretty sure there were challenges made...someone had to have been wrong. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle::yeah: :yeah: :IBCOOL:
Feel free to PM me so we can get this turkey contest funded like it has never been funded before. :tup:
Just a quick update it's not Tod pushing out the date!!! It's the prosecutions doing by charging the other guy with Tod they the prosecution don't want him testifying against the State.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.
The prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.
Except, the calls aren't recorded and weren't in this case... We know from the WDFW affidavit there was a call but they disagree on what the conversation was about and the response. TR decided to execute the speedy waiver and that was his choice. He could call the witness and they could only shut him down on questions where he is admitting to a crime. From his statement he did not commit a crime. He can testify to much of what he was advised if they can get around heresay.
Speaking of time and money......who won the bets earlier made in this topic / thread and who is writing a check for Youth turkey hunt contest?? I am pretty sure there were challenges made...someone had to have been wrong. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle::yeah: :yeah: :IBCOOL:
Feel free to PM me so we can get this turkey contest funded like it has never been funded before. :tup:
I believe CBoom lost a bet with me and owes some money to the Youth Turkey hunt but wasn't he banned? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Good deal. He seemed like a man of his word.
Good deal. He seemed like a man of his word.
Agreed
Good deal. He seemed like a man of his word. Hopefully he will come through and pay up. PM the man Jrebel
Good deal. He seemed like a man of his word.
Agreed
I must be missing it, but what bet did he lose?
(I thought it was he'd pay if TR was found guilty of poaching)?
:tup:Good deal. He seemed like a man of his word.
Agreed
I must be missing it, but what bet did he lose?
(I thought it was he'd pay if TR was found guilty of poaching)?
That would have been the safer bet! I did say he wouldn't be charged. The $ will go for a good cause for kids. I'd make make a bet any day when the kids win either way. I don't gamble at casinos, once in awhile play a very small time game of poker with friends. Really only try to make bets when I feal like I don't lose either way no matter the outcome, unless it's a sure thing! When I made this bet I already decided I should be donating to a good thing like that. Might have done more if I won the bet!
The prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.
:tup: Great way to look at it. I really think the bet could have gone either way. Good on you for donating to the kids. This years hunt should be one of the best yet. Thank you for your donation. :tup:Good deal. He seemed like a man of his word.
Agreed
I must be missing it, but what bet did he lose?
(I thought it was he'd pay if TR was found guilty of poaching)?
That would have been the safer bet! I did say he wouldn't be charged. The $ will go for a good cause for kids. I'd make make a bet any day when the kids win either way. I don't gamble at casinos, once in awhile play a very small time game of poker with friends. Really only try to make bets when I feal like I don't lose either way no matter the outcome, unless it's a sure thing! When I made this bet I already decided I should be donating to a good thing like that. Might have done more if I won the bet!
:tup:Good deal. He seemed like a man of his word. Hopefully he will come through and pay up. PM the man Jrebel
Glad this thread is back up top! Right, wrong, or yet to be determined I did lose a bet on this thead. Figured I would have to go back and read 20 pages to figure out how to pay up. So without looking through 20 or 66 pages! Who did I make that bet with? Was it Jrebel or Pinetar? Send me a PM and we will take care of it. Sorry for being late on this, I did get banned for awhile. And as being on at 6:54 or whatever time last night, guess I was? All my computers as well as my phone are set for being logged on all the time?
The prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.
We know the other guy is a liar? Who are you to make that statement and then bring in everybody else with the word we? We know you are not very bright. You say you do defense work, I guess you claim that if you are a janitor or something in a attorneys office. Clearly you are not a defense attorney, or you would know not all calls in regional office's are recorded. Even Morgan Grant who the calls were made to doesn't deny they were made. Stick to cleaning the windows and let the big Kids do do the thinking.
I'll go on a limb here and say cboom's contribution to the youth hunt may be the only real positive that comes out of this whole situation.
:tup:
I'm wondering if Reichert's companion will get up in court and testify under oath that he called and got permission from WDFW?
If he did not get permission, but told TR that shooting was permitted by WDFW, it would be fitting for TR to get off but the companion to be found guilty. I don't know if that is a likely thing or not......... :dunno:
In any event, I hope a trial does happen and the whole story gets told under oath. :twocents:
I'm wondering if Reichert's companion will get up in court and testify under oath that he called and got permission from WDFW?
If he did not get permission, but told TR that shooting was permitted by WDFW, it would be fitting for TR to get off but the companion to be found guilty. I don't know if that is a likely thing or not......... :dunno:
In any event, I hope a trial does happen and the whole story gets told under oath. :twocents:
If your buddy told you it was okay for you to go kill a ram right now, and you did, do you actually believe you should not be held accountable, but your buddy should be? :dunno:
Responsibility
I'm wondering if Reichert's companion will get up in court and testify under oath that he called and got permission from WDFW?
If he did not get permission, but told TR that shooting was permitted by WDFW, it would be fitting for TR to get off but the companion to be found guilty. I don't know if that is a likely thing or not......... :dunno:
In any event, I hope a trial does happen and the whole story gets told under oath. :twocents:
If your buddy told you it was okay for you to go kill a ram right now, and you did, do you actually believe you should not be held accountable, but your buddy should be? :dunno:
Responsibility
Exactly. I think he should be found guilty. But in a jury trial anything can happen. They can get a sympathetic juror to take pity on the old disabled hunter that was led astray by his friend that supposedly got permission from wdfw. (I wouldn't buy the song and dance from the defense attorney, but I can possibly see some jurors buying it).
The other guy was a hunting guide, so a person would be reasonable to put a little more faith in his word than just any random person. Not only was he a guide, but he was a local to the area, and you would expect that he'd be fully aware that the GMU was not open to the hunting of branch antler bull elk. I could see why Reichert might believe him when he said it was all legal. I don't know if Reichert truly believed he wasn't violating the law, but it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that he might have put his trust in the "guide."
On another note, I'm confused as to why he's being referred to as the "companion hunter." The only reason for that would be so the companion could shoot the bull for the "disabled" hunter. Of course there's no chance Reichert would let someone kill his trophy bull for him, so I don't get why they're claiming the guide was a companion hunter. :dunno:
The prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.
We know the other guy is a liar? Who are you to make that statement and then bring in everybody else with the word we? We know you are not very bright. You say you do defense work, I guess you claim that if you are a janitor or something in a attorneys office. Clearly you are not a defense attorney, or you would know not all calls in regional office's are recorded. Even Morgan Grant who the calls were made to doesn't deny they were made. Stick to cleaning the windows and let the big Kids do do the thinking.
You don't know anything about me. If I am wrong about the recording I can accept that. For your info, I am an attorney, I do defense work, and it takes a pretty bright person to finish in the top third of their law school class. You sound like a jealous person--the first thing you did was deny what I am, pretty funny actually. When I used the word "we" I wasn't including whiny, butt-hurt sympathizers like yourself. Even if I was a janitor--how is that a bad thing? You have shown everyone that you have disdain for people who do such work. In so doing, you revealed to everyone that you're a snob. You have embarrassed yourself with such childish attacks.
Hey, on another note, seeing how it is Sept 1st today, I wonder if TR is stalking a bull right now as we sit here in Hunt-Wa? I'm not jealous, but I do wish I was out hunting branch bull elk right now instead of sitting inside behind a computer. :(I know if I had that tag I would be out there knocking down a big one today for sure.
The prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.
We know the other guy is a liar? Who are you to make that statement and then bring in everybody else with the word we? We know you are not very bright. You say you do defense work, I guess you claim that if you are a janitor or something in a attorneys office. Clearly you are not a defense attorney, or you would know not all calls in regional office's are recorded. Even Morgan Grant who the calls were made to doesn't deny they were made. Stick to cleaning the windows and let the big Kids do do the thinking.
You don't know anything about me. If I am wrong about the recording I can accept that. For your info, I am an attorney, I do defense work, and it takes a pretty bright person to finish in the top third of their law school class. You sound like a jealous person--the first thing you did was deny what I am, pretty funny actually. When I used the word "we" I wasn't including whiny, butt-hurt sympathizers like yourself. Even if I was a janitor--how is that a bad thing? You have shown everyone that you have disdain for people who do such work. In so doing, you revealed to everyone that you're a snob. You have embarrassed yourself with such childish attacks.
Wow! You call a person that you don't know, or know anything about a liar publicly on a forum. A guy who bravely served this county in the armed forces. And I sound like a jeleous person? You really are a special kind of special. And no I have no problem at all with janitors or any other honest profession. Was just pointing out you clearly are not an attorney or at the very least a poor one. A good one would not be making flat out false statements like you did on a public forum.
I see we are back to working on closing this thread, moving it to Off Topics, or banning some posters.:yeah:
Real quality.
I see we are back to working on closing this thread, moving it to Off Topics, or banning some posters.:yeah:
Real quality.
Can we stop with the name calling, comparing bank accounts or organ size? How does any of that relate to the topic? :dunno:
A phone call was made and Grant Morgan gave his side of the phone call in the report. There was no mention of a recording in the report, not to say one doesn't exist. The WDFW may have one and the defense may have it recorded some how. I am sure there is another version of that call that hopefully will be brought out in the trial. If there is no recording somewhere in the middle of those two versions is where the truth probably lies.
The Cboom/Pinetar bet was $100 to the youth turkey hunt fund. Hope that helps.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160901/297380718a948a68a76c2ff7cdac52c4.jpg)
The prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.
Except, the calls aren't recorded and weren't in this case... We know from the WDFW affidavit there was a call but they disagree on what the conversation was about and the response. TR decided to execute the speedy waiver and that was his choice. He could call the witness and they could only shut him down on questions where he is admitting to a crime. From his statement he did not commit a crime. He can testify to much of what he was advised if they can get around heresay.
Except they won't get around hearsay with an exception and the only other reason to say what was said would be for the truth of the statement. They have a hearsay problem, no doubt. I don't know what he said, but there is a very good argument that he is an accomplice for aiding and abetting the crime that took place. His statement may not admit guilt, but the circumstances are perfect for the prosecutor to charge him as an accomplice. Of course, accomplice liability is the same as the liability of the principal. Both of their gooses are cooked, but like I said all he needs is one holdout juror.
Am I reading this right, Riechert has the tag again?Where ya been?
Am I reading this right, Riechert has the tag again?It's hard to sift through some of this thread but yes he has the tag this year here and in Pennsylvania.
And south central comboreally? That's what bullwinkle was shot with correct?
Makes no sense :dunno: how is it possible that he's able to hunt or fish with charges pending on a wildlife violation
Makes no sense :dunno: how is it possible that he's able to hunt or fish with charges pending on a wildlife violation
He needs to be assigned a personal game warden to tag along on all his hunts.
Makes no sense :dunno: how is it possible that he's able to hunt or fish with charges pending on a wildlife violation
Agreed, it doesn't make sense. But, it does speak volumes of a mans character that has been involved in 2 serious violation incidents yet he feels no shame and continues to go out and keep purchasing high dollar tags.
Makes no sense :dunno: how is it possible that he's able to hunt or fish with charges pending on a wildlife violation
Agreed, it doesn't make sense. But, it does speak volumes of a mans character that has been involved in 2 serious violation incidents yet he feels no shame and continues to go out and keep purchasing high dollar tags.
Innocent until proven guilty, that's how.
Bullwinkle is dead, nothing can be done about that.Makes no sense :dunno: how is it possible that he's able to hunt or fish with charges pending on a wildlife violation
Agreed, it doesn't make sense. But, it does speak volumes of a mans character that has been involved in 2 serious violation incidents yet he feels no shame and continues to go out and keep purchasing high dollar tags.
Innocent until proven guilty, that's how.
Innocent until proven guilty only applies for those who have lots of money. Otherwise, you would expect, like most anyone else, the rifle used to kill the bull would have been confiscated, the bull itself would have been taken, perhaps even the vehicle Reichert used when he was "hunting" this bull would have been taken. You hear about property being confiscated all the time in poaching cases. Funny how that didn't happen in this case.
Innocent until proven guilty only applies for those who have lots of money.
Innocent until proven guilty only applies for those who have lots of money.
Really :dunno:
Innocent until proven guilty only applies for those who have lots of money. Otherwise, you would expect, like most anyone else, the rifle used to kill the bull would have been confiscated, the bull itself would have been taken, perhaps even the vehicle Reichert used when he was "hunting" this bull would have been taken. You hear about property being confiscated all the time in poaching cases. Funny how that didn't happen in this case.We are talking about a trophy bull elk being taken by a guy that spends a lot of money each year at auctions and in the raffle.
Innocent until proven guilty only applies for those who have lots of money. Otherwise, you would expect, like most anyone else, the rifle used to kill the bull would have been confiscated, the bull itself would have been taken, perhaps even the vehicle Reichert used when he was "hunting" this bull would have been taken. You hear about property being confiscated all the time in poaching cases. Funny how that didn't happen in this case.We are talking about a trophy bull elk being taken by a guy that spends a lot of money each year at auctions and in the raffle.
This isn't @rtspring being accused of shooting a 2 pt deer in a 3 pt area where he lost his rifle in the shuffle. This is way less significant than that.
We are talking about a trophy bull elk being POACHED by a guy that spends a lot of money each year at auctions and in the raffle.
And has a history of flaunting hunting regulations.
:yike: It is obvious there are different rules for different people.Innocent until proven guilty only applies for those who have lots of money. Otherwise, you would expect, like most anyone else, the rifle used to kill the bull would have been confiscated, the bull itself would have been taken, perhaps even the vehicle Reichert used when he was "hunting" this bull would have been taken. You hear about property being confiscated all the time in poaching cases. Funny how that didn't happen in this case.We are talking about a trophy bull elk being taken by a guy that spends a lot of money each year at auctions and in the raffle.
This isn't @rtspring being accused of shooting a 2 pt deer in a 3 pt area where he lost his rifle in the shuffle. This is way less significant than that.
Lets not forget, they took my tag too! On the spot I could no longer hunt!
We need a sarcasm emoji. :sry:QuoteWe are talking about a trophy bull elk being POACHED by a guy that spends a lot of money each year at auctions and in the raffle.
And has a history of flaunting hunting regulations.
Fixed it for you
The amount of money he spends on raffles and auctions should have no more bearing on this case then how much he spends on underwear.....
Shooting a 2 point in a 3 point or better GMU
or
Shooting a trophy branched antler bull in a closed GMU
both = poaching
Why are you trying to diminish what he is accused of?
Jealous Internet jockies need to get a life. If you ain't got the money you have to hunt harder for trophy animals. Some of you guys are pathetic *censored*s. Leave the man alone he's a hunter and a Stuard to the environment. You don't know what happened and the state ain't charging him so go hump a tree.
Jealous Internet jockies need to get a life. If you ain't got the money you have to hunt harder for trophy animals. Some of you guys are pathetic *censored*s. Leave the man alone he's a hunter and a Stuard to the environment. You don't know what happened and the state ain't charging him so go hump a tree.He has been charged and I think the discussion about different standards for different income levels is a valid one.
We need a sarcasm emoji. :sry:QuoteWe are talking about a trophy bull elk being POACHED by a guy that spends a lot of money each year at auctions and in the raffle.
And has a history of flaunting hunting regulations.
Fixed it for you
The amount of money he spends on raffles and auctions should have no more bearing on this case then how much he spends on underwear.....
Shooting a 2 point in a 3 point or better GMU
or
Shooting a trophy branched antler bull in a closed GMU
both = poaching
Why are you trying to diminish what he is accused of?
Innocent until proven guilty only applies for those who have lots of money. Otherwise, you would expect, like most anyone else, the rifle used to kill the bull would have been confiscated, the bull itself would have been taken, perhaps even the vehicle Reichert used when he was "hunting" this bull would have been taken. You hear about property being confiscated all the time in poaching cases. Funny how that didn't happen in this case.
:yike: This has gone a lot farther than I would have guessed it would. I am glad they are going the whole way but definitely surprised.Innocent until proven guilty only applies for those who have lots of money. Otherwise, you would expect, like most anyone else, the rifle used to kill the bull would have been confiscated, the bull itself would have been taken, perhaps even the vehicle Reichert used when he was "hunting" this bull would have been taken. You hear about property being confiscated all the time in poaching cases. Funny how that didn't happen in this case.
They confiscated the bull at his court appearance yesterday. Not sure about the weapon or any other property.
Here we go again.... We're all back to being broke jelous whiners.... :tup:
We need a sarcasm emoji. :sry:QuoteWe are talking about a trophy bull elk being POACHED by a guy that spends a lot of money each year at auctions and in the raffle.
And has a history of flaunting hunting regulations.
Fixed it for you
The amount of money he spends on raffles and auctions should have no more bearing on this case then how much he spends on underwear.....
Shooting a 2 point in a 3 point or better GMU
or
Shooting a trophy branched antler bull in a closed GMU
both = poaching
Why are you trying to diminish what he is accused of?
Innocent until proven guilty only applies for those who have lots of money. Otherwise, you would expect, like most anyone else, the rifle used to kill the bull would have been confiscated, the bull itself would have been taken, perhaps even the vehicle Reichert used when he was "hunting" this bull would have been taken. You hear about property being confiscated all the time in poaching cases. Funny how that didn't happen in this case.
They confiscated the bull at his court appearance yesterday. Not sure about the weapon or any other property.
This typical cluster will still be pending a year from now when the charged party is hunting on next year's tags. Just keep delaying the trial date, filing this and that and costing money. Someone should set up a pool as to when the trial actually occurs.
Any idea where he killed the sheep coach? I ran into him twice on the yakima river and he passed on two pretty good rams that day.
You sure about that? :dunno:Any idea where he killed the sheep coach? I ran into him twice on the yakima river and he passed on two pretty good rams that day.
Eaton Ranch
You sure about that? :dunno:Any idea where he killed the sheep coach? I ran into him twice on the yakima river and he passed on two pretty good rams that day.
Eaton Ranch
Eaton in 142?
That makes sense.Eaton in 142?
I believe that's the name of the gentleman who owns a bunch of property in the Yakima river canyon area, east side of the highway I believe?
Is that the one with the access fee?Eaton in 142?
I believe that's the name of the gentleman who owns a bunch of property in the Yakima river canyon area, east side of the highway I believe?
Is that the one with the access fee?Eaton in 142?
I believe that's the name of the gentleman who owns a bunch of property in the Yakima river canyon area, east side of the highway I believe?
That makes sense.Eaton in 142?
I believe that's the name of the gentleman who owns a bunch of property in the Yakima river canyon area, east side of the highway I believe?
Somebody has to know somebody who knows somebody that knows somebody that's seen a pic of his harvests from this year, come on people...
This guy probably donated to the Clinton Foundation..... :bash:he lost money then, I heard they "Shut down" a huge portion of it....weird
That didn't clear anything up. The next loop hole is plain as day with this wording. Technically any unit open for elk hunting is open for bull elk. Even in an antlerless only unit you could end up shooting a calf bull, so you just legally shot a bull in that unit. If you could shoot that bull then you could use one of these tags to shoot any other bull.
It clears up the GMU 334 confusion but leaves open the possibility of hunting elk in a GMU open to antlerless elk only, because antlerless elk can be bulls.That didn't clear anything up. The next loop hole is plain as day with this wording. Technically any unit open for elk hunting is open for bull elk. Even in an antlerless only unit you could end up shooting a calf bull, so you just legally shot a bull in that unit. If you could shoot that bull then you could use one of these tags to shoot any other bull.
It specifically lists GMU 334 as not being open. Problem solved. It should have always been that way. But I still don't agree with Reichert exploiting that issue, and claiming that it wasn't clear.
It clears up the GMU 334 confusion but leaves open the possibility of hunting elk in a GMU open to antlerless elk only, because antlerless elk can be bulls.That didn't clear anything up. The next loop hole is plain as day with this wording. Technically any unit open for elk hunting is open for bull elk. Even in an antlerless only unit you could end up shooting a calf bull, so you just legally shot a bull in that unit. If you could shoot that bull then you could use one of these tags to shoot any other bull.
It specifically lists GMU 334 as not being open. Problem solved. It should have always been that way. But I still don't agree with Reichert exploiting that issue, and claiming that it wasn't clear.
I don't know of any presently but there could be in the future at which time they'd need to rewrite the WAC.It clears up the GMU 334 confusion but leaves open the possibility of hunting elk in a GMU open to antlerless elk only, because antlerless elk can be bulls.That didn't clear anything up. The next loop hole is plain as day with this wording. Technically any unit open for elk hunting is open for bull elk. Even in an antlerless only unit you could end up shooting a calf bull, so you just legally shot a bull in that unit. If you could shoot that bull then you could use one of these tags to shoot any other bull.
It specifically lists GMU 334 as not being open. Problem solved. It should have always been that way. But I still don't agree with Reichert exploiting that issue, and claiming that it wasn't clear.
What units are only open to antlerless elk?
Oh it's perfectly clear to me for 334 but then again it was perfectly clear to me when it obviously wasn't to a hunter that goes after these trophy bulls all the time. I can just see that there is a way around this new rule maybe not in 334 and maybe not in any units under the current regs. But if down the line they change another units regs to be similar to 334 they will have to address this issue again.That didn't clear anything up. The next loop hole is plain as day with this wording. Technically any unit open for elk hunting is open for bull elk. Even in an antlerless only unit you could end up shooting a calf bull, so you just legally shot a bull in that unit. If you could shoot that bull then you could use one of these tags to shoot any other bull.
It specifically lists GMU 334 as not being open. Problem solved. It should have always been that way. But I still don't agree with Reichert exploiting that issue, and claiming that it wasn't clear.
That didn't clear anything up. The next loop hole is plain as day with this wording. Technically any unit open for elk hunting is open for bull elk. Even in an antlerless only unit you could end up shooting a calf bull, so you just legally shot a bull in that unit. If you could shoot that bull then you could use one of these tags to shoot any other bull.
It specifically lists GMU 334 as not being open. Problem solved. It should have always been that way. But I still don't agree with Reichert exploiting that issue, and claiming that it wasn't clear.