WDFW bad rep

[bigtex]

I for one do not understand the routine checks as we do not live in a Police State.  Leave me alone unless you have cause to believe I have done something that warrants an approach and/or questioning.

Supreme Court rulings have actually stated you give up some constitutional rights when you decide to hunt/fish because it is such a regulated activity and without such searches enforcement would be incredibly weakened thus impacting the resource.

[cougarbart]

i have had roughly 45 encounters with different wardens!  a few were pleasant and some were not, i could give names about half the wardens on the east side of the state and give you my view but i will say curt woods is one of the most  professional! some encounters have not been horrible but i thought they could be friendly since there job is to gather evidence and its the judges job to decide if your guilty or not!

[jess]

another thing people are not happy with the department is the disaster that they are letting happen with the wolves! And how they sold out in the mid 90s and let people who never hunt or contribute to the wdfw tell all us huters we cant hound hunt.. I was born in washington and have seen big game populations fall all across the state because the predator population is out of control and we lost a huge tool when they sold out to special intrest groups in the mid 90s and they are doing the same thing now with the wolves!!!!  That is why i dont like the wdfw!

[Bob33]

Particularly in this economy, I have a hard time believing that an officer who is the subject of frequent complaints would remain in that position for long.

[Alan K]

I've never had any problems with WDFW game wardens.  I used to get checked fairly often in Vail, but haven't seen any wardens up there for a while.  I've been checked probably a dozen times or so in my life, and the only time I've been in the wrong for anything was we were 1 life jacket short in our boat, though we had a floater pad thing for the person.  He let us off with a warning and we made a point to stop and pick one up on the way home.

The worst game wardens I've experienced are Colorado's.  They (I should say this one guy that I dealt with) ask you 20 different questions about your hunt covering the same topics trying to see if your story changes.  Granted we're out of state hunters hunting near the border of two units, but there wasn't any reason for him to believe I'd done anything wrong.  I finally offered to take him up to the gut pile so he'd get off my back, but once I offered that he backed off.    The people at their game offices are OUTSTANDING! They actually want you to be successful, quite the opposite of the impression I get from WDFW. They'll offer whatever information they can to help you get your animal, right down to circling basins on a map they'd seen elk in days before etc. etc.  Great people.

[bigtex]

I find it interesting that some individuals report hunting for decades and never having a single negative experience, while others report consistently having problems.

Do those of you that have these consistent problems report the incidents so WDFW can address them?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html

I kinda get the impression the most that hate them have had bad run ins with WDFW officers when they were doing their jobs.   

 
Would like the real names of the "bashers" of WDFW Officers on here to see how many of them had issues (citations/arrests) with WDFW Officers.

JASON TRAPP and not one violation or citation

Jason, Didn't really see you bash WDFW. And the things you stated regarding your friends were CLEAR violations, just like Bob said.

[cmiller85]

"The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited...I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong."

Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?

"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."

The thing that kinda gets me here is that they were at a campground and not in the field. What are they suppose to do? What if they are camping for a week. Would they be required to drive home, clean the ducks and come back? What if they are out of state hunters? I understand the logic in the law to some degree but this raises some interesting questions.

What is considered to be in the field?
And, what is considered transporting? Could camp be considered an abode?

[buckfvr]

Years long since past, we always ate pheasant, quail, huns, for dinner when we stayed out for a few days....couldnt afford restaurant food or motels....A few fried spuds and fresh killed birds is what we had period.

[BOWHUNTER45]

I know they love me now  We just missed my sons court date for ( Mis handling wild steelhead out of water ) No... it was not intensionally ...I am busy with work and I spaced it off ...as I was almost at work I realized I forgot  and NO Ted does not have a warrant for his arrest at 17  ...they just sent me a new court date !

[dreamunelk]

Years long since past, we always ate pheasant, quail, huns, for dinner when we stayed out for a few days....couldnt afford restaurant food or motels....A few fried spuds and fresh killed birds is what we had period.

Tend to do very similar when on grouse camping trip.  Some times you have to reduce the number in possession to continue hunting.  Eat them so you only have two limits in the cooler    

[buckfvr]

Years long since past, we always ate pheasant, quail, huns, for dinner when we stayed out for a few days....couldnt afford restaurant food or motels....A few fried spuds and fresh killed birds is what we had period.

Tend to do very similar when on grouse camping trip.  Some times you have to reduce the number in possession to continue hunting.  Eat them so you only have two limits in the cooler

Funny you should mention that.....    We plan to bring the table top bbq on our grouse forays this next fall, and eat our way out of the woods.....love those big blues....

[Knocker of rocks]

Would like the real names of the "bashers" of WDFW Officers on here to see how many of them had issues (citations/arrests) with WDFW Officers.

And maybe, just maybe, after WDFW had their names, they could be subject to a teeny weeny bit of legal harassment?

[lokidog]

"The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited...I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong."

Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?

"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."

 

The only problem with your logic here is that, I believe, their camper/tent/motorhome is considered their domicile and unless they were driving with the headless ducks, they should have been fine, as they could have eaten them that night for dinner.  I don't think you have to leave a head/wing on it when you cook it at your campsite?     Once again, guilty until proven innocent. 

"The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited...I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong."

Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?

"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."

The thing that kinda gets me here is that they were at a campground and not in the field. What are they suppose to do? What if they are camping for a week. Would they be required to drive home, clean the ducks and come back? What if they are out of state hunters? I understand the logic in the law to some degree but this raises some interesting questions.

What is considered to be in the field?
And, what is considered transporting? Could camp be considered an abode?

 

You can eat your limit a day, every f'ing day, even at a campsite!

[Bob33]

"The only problem with your logic here is that, I believe, their camper/tent/motorhome is considered their domicile and unless they were driving with the headless ducks, they should have been fine, as they could have eaten them that night for dinner. I don't think you have to leave a head/wing on it when you cook it at your campsite?"

Apparently the officer saw it that way as well or they would have been cited.

[Knocker of rocks]

The only problem with your logic here is that, I believe, their camper/tent/motorhome is considered their domicile and unless they were driving with the headless ducks, they should have been fine, as they could have eaten them that night for dinner.  I don't think you have to leave a head/wing on it when you cook it at your campsite?     Once again, guilty until proven innocent

A tent, camper, motorhome, truck canopy or stout cardboard box is considered a temporary domicile, and  is not subject to warrantless search.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094