WDFW bad rep

[lokidog]

"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.

Except that he continued to harass them and asked them to see registration for a boat that was not being used.  If it had current tags on it, at a glance, that should have been enough for any but a real piece of work that was simply frustrated at not getting his hard-on for nailing somneone.  Fortunately, in this state, I have not had to deal with any butt head wardens (oh yeah, fish and wildlife officers    ), unfortunately, though, they are out there, just like there are butt head sheriffs and WSP and Seattle cops.  We, as hunters, tend to encounter the wardens more and that's why there are more stories of them than other LEOs, this in response to someone's earlier question.  Fortunately, these ones do seem to be in the minority, well except for maybe the Seattle ones....   

[Humptulips]

I think the problem is one bad experience jaundices your view of all LE. If you are out there and you think you are trying to do the right thing and you get hammered it's likely you will be  prejudiced next time you have an encounter with LE.
Never had a ticket in WA but I have seen some pretty fast on the draw with a ticket book even though I contacted them. I've come to realize enforcement is not your friend and I am very guarded when talking to them. It shouldn't be that way but it is.
I did get a ticket in OR and even though all but this one experience with this one officer were positive it sure left a bad taste in my mouth. I still know I was in the right and have zero respect for the guy and it definetly tarnishes others even though they seem like good fellas.

The upper echelons don't help matters and that is all politics. How would you feel if you belonged to a group that was subject to citation under a statute while at the same time there was a department policy of not citing another group for breaking the same law? It's happening and it's hard to get respect doing that.

[SemperFidelis97]

"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?

I have wondered the same thing honestly where we do allot of our hunting there are not any easy ways to get animals out so I use the gutless method, and only take out useable meat I have never thought of packing out the proof of sex out of contamination concerns with the meat being in the on carried on the same pack.  As for the subject I have had more positive experiences than negative ones with wildlife officials, I will say all of the officers I have dealt with on the east side have been fantastic I have had a couple of officers on the west side that seemed a little more suspicious, but all proffessional.

[bigtex]

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?

Didnt say it was legal. My point was, I wonder how many of these people who bash them have fish and wildlife records/histories. I'm willing to bet the majority of them do.

[bigtex]

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

If the individuals consented then there is no legal issue.

[NoImpactNoIdea]

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?

Didnt say it was legal. My point was, I wonder how many of these people who bash them have fish and wildlife records/histories. I'm willing to bet the majority of them do.

It seems pretty logical to me that if you have a legitimate gripe that you would need to have a negative first hand experience.  Whether or not you were in the wrong during that experience is going to be the litmus test.

[NoImpactNoIdea]

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

If the individuals consented then there is no legal issue.

I think that if the majority of the consent that I have heard about was challenged you would have a lot of WDFW Officers in the LEDs.

[norsepeak]

There are SO many friggin rules that no matter what you do in the woods you FEEL like you are breaking a law whether you are or aren't.

[Humptulips]

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?

Didnt say it was legal. My point was, I wonder how many of these people who bash them have fish and wildlife records/histories. I'm willing to bet the majority of them do.

And there in lies one of the most common complaints, an asumption of guilt without evidence.

[Simcoe hunter]

Rich appears to have the small mans disease.

That must be why the "BIG" dog

As a youngster my Dad worked for the old Fisheries Dept.  they had some great LEO's.  When the two departments were merged I remember meeting a couple of good gamies.  But I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for the last two we have had around here, particularly the current one.  He will ask the same question of you 3 or 4 times in a row and try to twist your answers to confuse you.  What an a$$.

[cougarbart]

as my dad always told me and he was a school teacher, hunting education instructor and loved the law "game wardens do not have your best interest at heart!" they are not customer service or biologist their job is to enforce game laws to indivuals and most will do anything to do just that!

[Button Nubbs]

Rich appears to have the small mans disease.

That must be why the "BIG" dog

As a youngster my Dad worked for the old Fisheries Dept.  they had some great LEO's.  When the two departments were merged I remember meeting a couple of good gamies.  But I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for the last two we have had around here, particularly the current one.  He will ask the same question of you 3 or 4 times in a row and try to twist your answers to confuse you.  What an a$$.

That's called doing their job. If you have nothing to hide you shoiuldnt have a problem.

[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?

Didnt say it was legal. My point was, I wonder how many of these people who bash them have fish and wildlife records/histories. I'm willing to bet the majority of them do.

Specious and circular argument.  Those that have not had a negative experience with WDFW would have no reason to bash them, now would they.  It would be a safe assumption to say that many of the individuals who did have negative experiences with WDFW could have received a ticket.

Your wished for data would prove nothing .

On another point, WDFW is the only agency who's target demographic is by and large otherwise "normal and legal appearing" white males, predominately close to middle class and often approaching middle age.  Think about being a black teenager, and their view of the police.

[Knocker of rocks]

That's called doing their job. If you have nothing to hide you shoiuldnt have a problem.

One should be cooperative within reason, but should never give up their rights "because they have nothing to lose".

[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

If the individuals consented then there is no legal issue.

And we have no idea whether they did or not.  So your entire statement is based on suposition of the nth degree