Calling elk legal?

[Blacktail Sniper]

Anybody willing to really test this theory about whether it is legal or not??

This fall, take a non-licensed person out to do the calling while the properly licensed and tag and or permit bearing one hunts and shoots an animal.  Capture it all on video, identify each person, their role in the hunt and license, tag and permit status, then turn the video over to the game department.

Better still how about several doing it in different counties, so can get a better cross section of data for the experiment?

See what or if any charges are brought, or if they even care enough to follow up on it.  Best way to settle this once and for all.  Then if charged, follow through the court system to the end.

Becasue, really other than that, it is just going to be a round and round discussion of opinions.

Any takers amongst those who are adamant that there is no laws being broken???   

[xd2005]

How many of us have hunting partners that don't buy a hunting license? This will affect a very small portion of those in the woods this year.

Living on the border, I've known a number of guys that have friends that come up here for our season and vice versa.

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

Blacktailsniper-  I don't believe the burden of proof falls on the hunter.  The burden of proof would be wdfw's job to establish.  I  bet you can find thousands of videos online that depict every instance in which you described.  Except the video wasn't hand delivered to the department for scrutiny.  If they would like to scrutinize these videos they are public and are there for them to look over.  Personally I have seen a lot of videos where multiple people are hunting one has tagged out on film and is filming/ calling while the other is hunting.  Or videos depicting guides calling for permit holders so they can focus on shooting.  If it were a crime lots of money would be made in fines and such just by going through you tube.  The department has made lots of cases by way of social media and more likely than not, not a signal one is for calling w/o a tag.  So just cause the hunter isn't willing to stick his hand out to get bit doesn't mean the department will prosecute.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Blacktailsniper-  I don't believe the burden of proof falls on the hunter.  The burden of proof would be wdfw's job to establish.  I  bet you can find thousands of videos online that depict every instance in which you described.  Except the video wasn't hand delivered to the department for scrutiny.  If they would like to scrutinize these videos they are public and are there for them to look over.  Personally I have seen a lot of videos where multiple people are hunting one has tagged out on film and is filming/ calling while the other is hunting.  Or videos depicting guides calling for permit holders so they can focus on shooting.  If it were a crime lots of money would be made in fines and such just by going through you tube.  The department has made lots of cases by way of social media and more likely than not, not a signal one is for calling w/o a tag.  So just cause the hunter isn't willing to stick his hand out to get bit doesn't mean the department will prosecute.

Correct.  No arguement there. 

My point of the post was twofold, if you want a definative answer, that is what it would it take...getting it into the system to run its course, and secondly, it was a challenge of sorts for those who are so sure that they had nothing to worry about, to step up out of the internet world and walk the walk in the real world, where there may something really at risk if they are wrong. 

Did I expect or think anyone would accept the challenge or actually do it??  No, not in a million years.  But it was funny to see the post suddenly go quiet for so long afterwards....   

[bobcat]

Did I expect or think anyone would accept the challenge or actually do it??  No, not in a million years.  But it was funny to see the post suddenly go quiet for so long afterwards....   

I wouldn't have a problem doing that. Only problem is that's not my hunting method this year. We're planning on hunting out of ground blinds and ambushing the elk rather than trying to call them to us.

Maybe next year...

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

Blacktail sniper-  the fact is many members of hunt wa (whom I am sure share the same adamant stance on the topic as discussed previously) have already filmed and posted these scenarios on the very real world Internet for all law enforcement agencys to view.  Maybe the lack of response was due to the lack of intelligence in your "challenge".  If thousands of these videos exist already why would the department need them delivered to the headquarters?  They have the Internet.  As stated before the department would surely capitalize on a law being broken and published online.  They have prosecuted by way of public media before and will continue to do so.  But laws that don't exist require no prosecution.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Okay!

 

[stuckalot]

Just for good measure blacktail, they could transport the animal to another state and make it an interstate trafficking case and the Feds could get involved! Where's Big Tex anyways?

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

Okay!

 

Great way to concede.... 

You could of said yeah your right no judge/jury would convict a crime of this nature and it's wrong for me to place the burden of proof on law biding sportsman while trying to make them look/feel stupid for not accepting a horribly thought out "challenge".... 

[Blacktail Sniper]

Copied from an earlier post in the thread:

Here is the Email...Im not liking this at all and all of us need to change this...

Dear Mr. Maybee,

 

Thank you for contacting the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

 

Your friend is correct. If you are only watching or guiding, you do not need a hunting license. However, if you are directly assisting and participating (such as driving game or packing hunting weapons), you will need the appropriate hunting license.

 

Calling elk for a friend is directly assisting and participating in the hunt. In this case, both would need the appropriate elk license and tag.

 

Best regards,

 

Wildlife Program Customer Service

(360) 902-2515

 
Two things come to mind. If you have a partner that submits and draws the same permit. You call and he tags out..He now cant help you?? No returning the favor because legally he doesnt hold a permit any longer. BS.

Another is better start applying with a partner because you wont legally be able to have help.

Seems like the issue is that even though the WDFW has directly said it would be illegal in the above email response to another members inquiry, some don't want to or refuse accept that. It apparently isn't the answer some want to hear so therefore it is incorrect.  Or, instead its what about this then or what about that, maybe if this and that....an on and on. 

Yes there are 1000's of like videos on pubic forums, video sites, etc., how many of them indicate they are doing something that may be against the law?  Generally, if any mention is made at all it is to say ALL laws are being followed.  If there is no risk of being wrong, no law being broken, no worry about fines, loss of hunting license, etc, then why is such a big deal? 

Are the laws and such all written to be easily understood by everyone all the time? No, they can be as confusing as trying to read a foreign language.

Can they be improved, made clearer, simpler?  Absolutely!

Will it happen on its own?  Maybe, but not likely.

Left to the legislature and hunters, hounds and baiting were not an issue.  The anti's organized, spent time, energy, money, and sold their point of view to the people that mattered, the ones with the power to make it so. 

You didn't or wouldn't see them argueing amongst themselves, making silly statements like transporting across state lines to get the Fed's involved, etc.  They stood together and did something about it.  Got called names, their intelligence questioned, etc., etc.,  but they stuck together and got a law to say and do clearly what they wanted it to.

It is things like this type behavior that will always be hunter's biggest problem...my way is better, right, more ethical, etc than what I don't like or agree with that you are doing or what I am being told.   

The question was raised by someone with a genuine concern, contact was made with the agency responsible for enforcing the applicable law(s), and an answer was received. 



 

[Blacktail Sniper]

Okay!

 

Great way to concede.... 

You could of said yeah your right no judge/jury would convict a crime of this nature and it's wrong for me to place the burden of proof on law biding sportsman while trying to make them look/feel stupid for not accepting a horribly thought out "challenge"....

No concession, just what I thought was an apropriate response.

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

God knows wild life customer service has never been wrong....  To think you believe some hippy at the headquarters couldn't have miss interpreted the verbiage is crazy.  I'm no attorney but even I could convince a jury that the verbiage used is not intended to enforce such instances as calling for friends.  If so they would be convicting all that have posted such videos.  Why would people posting videos of calling for friends, state in said video that they were breaking laws if they weren't?  To satisfy you?  Or to satisfy those who choose to miss construe the harassing wildlife law ?  Believe the customer service all you want.  I believe the lack of convictions speaks for itself.  Even though they don't say the are breaking the law. I doubt any conviction by way of social media has the defendant stating "I'm breaking the law". But if that's your logic....

[Blacktail Sniper]

God knows wild life customer service has never been wrong....  To think you believe some hippy at the headquarters couldn't have miss interpreted the verbiage is crazy.  I'm no attorney but even I could convince a jury that the verbiage used is not intended to enforce such instances as calling for friends.  If so they would be convicting all that have posted such videos.  Why would people posting videos of calling for friends, state in said video that they were breaking laws if they weren't?  To satisfy you?  Or to satisfy those who choose to miss construe the harassing wildlife law ?  Believe the customer service all you want.  I believe the lack of convictions speaks for itself.  Even though they don't say the are breaking the law. I doubt any conviction by way of social media has the defendant stating "I'm breaking the law". But if that's your logic....

Sorry if I offended you, you seem to be taking this entire thing very personal and it was not meant as a personal attack on any one individual, just an idea to maybe put a different perspective on the subject.  Clearly you do not agree, that is fine and your right.

I have not called anyone names, questioned their intelligence or otherwise tried to offend anyone.  The agency in power was asked and an answer received.  Now, I agree with you, mistakes happen, things are read one way by some and another by others.  This entire thread is a great example of that.

My point was at that time then, talking round and round, over and over was useless, an action was needed if a final answer was desired.  I sugguested an example, with no intention or expectation that someone would take it to heart or become offended.  I thought it would be a better way of saying put your money where your mouth is so to speak.  If you really believe it something to be true, take a chance and put it out there to the test, if you are right, there is nothing to lose.  Nothing more than that.   

[Maybee-R]

God knows wild life customer service has never been wrong....  To think you believe some hippy at the headquarters couldn't have miss interpreted the verbiage is crazy.  I'm no attorney but even I could convince a jury that the verbiage used is not intended to enforce such instances as calling for friends.  If so they would be convicting all that have posted such videos.  Why would people posting videos of calling for friends, state in said video that they were breaking laws if they weren't?  To satisfy you?  Or to satisfy those who choose to miss construe the harassing wildlife law ?  Believe the customer service all you want.  I believe the lack of convictions speaks for itself.  Even though they don't say the are breaking the law. I doubt any conviction by way of social media has the defendant stating "I'm breaking the law". But if that's your logic....

You risk getting more involved with what is or isnt clearly against the law. Prove they are wrong. Dont just assume and act like this is stupid so it cant be so.
I posted here for help and hoped someone could clear this up. Speculation isnt proof enough.

[Maybee-R]

Blacktail sniper-  the fact is many members of hunt wa (whom I am sure share the same adamant stance on the topic as discussed previously) have already filmed and posted these scenarios on the very real world Internet for all law enforcement agencys to view.  Maybe the lack of response was due to the lack of intelligence in your "challenge".  If thousands of these videos exist already why would the department need them delivered to the headquarters?  They have the Internet.  As stated before the department would surely capitalize on a law being broken and published online.  They have prosecuted by way of public media before and will continue to do so.  But laws that don't exist require no prosecution.

I hope your right. I have asked for the date and link to the law. I want to see it in writing and when this was made into law.
I also sent in my contempt to this unjust rule or law if its true.