2 accused of illegally selling caviar, steelhead, salmon

[bearpaw]

This may ruffle some feathers and it's not meant to do that, but I was a little disappointed by what seemed like an attitude. It almost seemed that he assumed or expected that because he was retired law enforcement he should not need to meet the same advertising requirements as other members selling other commercial items on the forum. No offense meant toward anyone, but did anyone else get that feeling by the response?

[singleshot12]

I think there needs to be some sort of loop hole in the board rules when it comes down to getting the word out on protecting wildlife. I think there is a big difference between selling a book vs. someone profiting from say the guiding or taxidermy business.

[Knocker of rocks]

This may ruffle some feathers and it's not meant to do that, but I was a little disappointed by what seemed like an attitude. It almost seemed that he assumed or expected that because he was retired law enforcement he should not need to meet the same advertising requirements as other members selling other commercial items on the forum. No offense meant toward anyone, but did anyone else get that feeling by the response?

You gotta wonder if when he was enforcing laws, he thought that "ignorance of the laws" was a valid excuse

Today was my first time ever on WA Hunting Forum, and my last.
Tried to spread the word about the commercialization of Washington's wildlife, but ran into nothing but opposition.
I am just not up on all the forum rules, and really had good intentions, but it isn't worth it.

[Knocker of rocks]

I think there needs to be some sort of loop hole in the board rules when it comes down to getting the word out on protecting wildlife. I think there is a big difference between selling a book vs. someone profiting from say the guiding or taxidermy business.

He was still selling a book.

[turkeyfeather]

This may ruffle some feathers and it's not meant to do that, but I was a little disappointed by what seemed like an attitude. It almost seemed that he assumed or expected that because he was retired law enforcement he should not need to meet the same advertising requirements as other members selling other commercial items on the forum. No offense meant toward anyone, but did anyone else get that feeling by the response?

I didn't get the impression at first that he was trying to skirt the rules. However his response when he was informed of the rules seemed a bit childish.

[nwwanderer]

Back to the perps, the Russians had 70 years of practice.  Our system is perfect for their home experience.  We fine them and take their pickup.  The last time I was in Ukraine they were trying to decide if Stalin killed 60 or 120 million folks.  They will never know how many but the point is our way is simple compared to home.  Wish I had a solution, be careful out there.

[bearpaw]

I think there needs to be some sort of loop hole in the board rules when it comes down to getting the word out on protecting wildlife. I think there is a big difference between selling a book vs. someone profiting from say the guiding or taxidermy business.

If he was only interested in sharing his experiences he could provide the text for free on this forum to anyone or he could share his stories through magazines if he wasn't interested in profiting. I really see no difference, business is business if you are doing it for a profit. That said, he is as welcome here as any other sponsor or he is also welcome here as any other member and may share his stories free if not for a profit. As was stated, he should understand rules since he used to enforce rules. 

No hard feelings either way, and sorry about the hijack. 

[mrmoskillz]

If he went about it the right way he could have got the money back he would have spent becoming a sponsor from the members on here buying his book 

[Hunterman]

I think there needs to be some sort of loop hole in the board rules when it comes down to getting the word out on protecting wildlife. I think there is a big difference between selling a book vs. someone profiting from say the guiding or taxidermy business.

Rules are rules. There are too many loop holes in life. I'm glad these were kept shut. This dude was a LEO and makes me wonder how he did his job with the attitude he had here when confronted.

Hunterman(Tony)

[grundy53]

This may ruffle some feathers and it's not meant to do that, but I was a little disappointed by what seemed like an attitude. It almost seemed that he assumed or expected that because he was retired law enforcement he should not need to meet the same advertising requirements as other members selling other commercial items on the forum. No offense meant toward anyone, but did anyone else get that feeling by the response?

I agree. I got the same feeling.

sent from my typewriter

[ucwarden]

A friend of mine advised me to log back on, to see some of the comments regarding my earlier posts.
First; as I said before yesterday was my first time ever on a forum, so I am totally new to this.  I say this not as an excuse but rather as an explanation.
Secondly; I did violate the rules on advertising.  Inadvertent or not, I placed a post which advertised a book, for which I make money (very little, but still some).  I already did what I could on that front, as I took the posting down and today emailed a representative of “hunting Washington”, and asked about placing a paid ad (I haven’t heard back yet).
As to the suggestion that I “provide the text (of the book) for free”, that’s not very realistic.  The book is 454 pages and I am under contract with Amazon to not provide the book in any electronic form.
There were several comments regarding my “attitude” when confronted with my improper posting.  I am not sure why my response sounded like “attitude”, but it was certainly not intended as such.  I pulled the post down, and wished everyone a successful hunting season (which I meant sincerely).  I guess the attitude came from my comment that “it isn’t worth it”.  Sorry if that offended anyone, but if it did then maybe I am not the one with thin skin.
I also saw some comments regarding what kind of officer I was.  Those comments are pretty cheap shots.  Judge my work performance by my work performance, not by posting on a hunting forum.
Now back to the subject at hand.  If everyone is done discussing if I should have posted the “book advertisement”, I am more than willing to discuss the more serious problem; commercial poaching in Washington.  That was the reason I made the post in the first place.  It is also the only reason I wrote the book (I never intended the book to be a money maker for me).  If any of you have questions or comments on poaching, wildlife trafficking, or WDFW’s response to such, I will be glad to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.

[bigtex]

When ucwarden was awarded WDFW Officer of the year several years ago, that year he wrote several hundred citations, received 0 complaints, and actually had citizen compliments from those he had cited..... 

[Knocker of rocks]

OK, you win.  I will pull out of this entire blog.
Sorry to inconvience you.

A little bit of martyrdom there for one thing

[ucwarden]

OK, "Knocker of rocks".  Haven't you beat this to death yet?
Is my reponse, and you interpretation of my response really a bigger issue that commercial poaching to you?

If you would like to have a one on one conversation about my postings, feel free to email me, provide your phone number and we can speak in person, but I for one really do care more about wildlife than I do about what you think of me personally.

[Skillet]

An actual apology for what you actually did - which was dismiss well over 10,000 prime customers and the owner of the site who hosts them - will go a lot farther than further insulting them by offering up a fake apology in the form of suggesting that those who took exception to your demonstration of a lack of willingness to follow forum rules have "thin skin." 

Just man up and admit you were wrong, were new, etc.  I have little doubt than in your long career you've offered advice very similar to that a time or two.