WDFW LE Great Resource for HuntWA - Please Be Respectful

[bigtex]

I have retrieved the spotlighting laws from Oregon, California, and Idaho. Idaho and California's laws are more inline with WA's law that the light does not need to be shined on an animal, but CA's law does provide an exemption for smaller handheld flashlights, and Idaho's provides one for under 6 volts.

Oregon:
498.146¹

Shining artificial light on game mammal, predatory animal or livestock while in or near motor vehicle and while in possession of weapon restricted
 
(1) No person shall cast from a motor vehicle or from within 500 feet of a motor vehicle an artificial light upon any game mammal, predatory animal or livestock while there is in the possession or in the immediate physical presence of the person a weapon with which the game mammal, predatory animal or livestock could be killed.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person who casts artificial light upon a game mammal, predatory animal or livestock:
(a) From the headlights of a motor vehicle that is being operated on a road in the usual manner, if that person makes no attempt to kill the game mammal or livestock; or
(b) When the weapon that person has in the possession or immediate physical presence of the person is disassembled or stored, or in the trunk or storage compartment of a motor vehicle; or
(c) On land owned or lawfully occupied by that person; or
(d) On publicly owned land when that person has an agreement with the public body to use that property.
(3) As used in this section, predatory animal has the meaning for that term provided in ORS 610.002 (Predatory animals defined). [1973 c.542 §2; 1975 c.791 §2]

California:
2005.
(a) Except as otherwise authorized by this section, it is unlawful to use an artificial light to assist in the taking of game birds, game mammals, or game fish, except that this section shall not apply to sport fishing in ocean waters or other waters where night fishing is permitted if the lights are not used on or as part of the fishing tackle, commercial fishing, nor to the taking of mammals, the taking of which is governed by Article 2 (commencing with Section 4180) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 4.
(b) It is unlawful for any person, or one or more persons, to throw or cast the rays of any spotlight, headlight, or other artificial light on any highway or in any field, woodland, or forest where game mammals, fur-bearing mammals, or nongame mammals are commonly found, or upon any game mammal, fur-bearing mammal, or nongame mammal, while having in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm or weapon with which that mammal could be killed, even though the mammal is not killed, injured, shot at, or otherwise pursued.
(c) It is unlawful to use or possess at any time any infrared or similar light used in connection with an electronic viewing device or any night vision equipment, optical devices, including, but not limited to, binoculars or scopes, that use light-amplifying circuits that are electrical or battery powered, to assist in the taking of birds, mammals, amphibians, or fish.
(d) The provisions of this section do not apply to any of the following:
(1) The use of a hand-held flashlight no larger, nor emitting more light, than a two-cell, three-volt flashlight, provided that light is not affixed in any way to a weapon, or to the use of a lamp or lantern that does not cast a directional beam of light.
(2) Headlights of a motor vehicle operated in a usual manner where there is no attempt or intent to locate a game mammal, fur-bearing mammal, or nongame mammal.
(3) To the owner, or his or her employee, of land devoted to the agricultural industry while on that land, or land controlled by such an owner and in connection with the agricultural industry.
(4) To those other uses as the commission may authorize by regulation.
(e) A person shall not be arrested for violation of this section except by a peace officer.

Idaho
31-1106(6)
Artificial Light. Hunt any animal or bird except raccoon by the aid of a spotlight, flashlight or artificial light of any kind. The act of casting or throwing, after sunset, the beam or rays of any spotlight, headlight or other artificial light capable of utilizing six (6) volts or more of electrical power upon any field, forest or other place by any person while having in his possession or under his control any uncased firearm or contrivance capable of killing any animal or bird, shall be prima facie evidence of hunting with an artificial light. Provided nothing in this subsection shall apply where the headlights of a motor vehicle, operated and proceeding in a normal manner on any highway or roadway, cast a light upon animals or birds on or adjacent to such highway or roadway and there is no intent or attempt to locate such animals or birds. Provided further, nothing in this subsection shall prevent the hunting of unprotected or predatory wildlife with the aid of artificial light when such hunting is for the purpose of protecting property or livestock, is done by landowners or persons authorized in writing by them to do so and is done on property they own, lease or control; and provided further that the hunting and taking of unprotected or predatory wildlife with the aid of artificial light on public lands is authorized after obtaining a permit to do so from the director. The director may, for good cause, refuse to issue such permit.

[Knocker of rocks]

All three examples rely on intent and action.  In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walking

[bigtex]

All three examples rely on intent and action.  In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walking

Hunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "how is the hunting?" Hunter says "good"

Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.

In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.

[dmv9]

Would it matter if the rifle was unloaded while walking with the flash light?

[bobcat]

The lesson to be learned then is don't ever admit to hunting. Yes, you may have been hunting earlier that day but now you are done hunting and are simply on a walk. The rifle is loaded in case you are attacked by a wolf.

[bigtex]

It may be time to rally support in the legislature for an exemption of handheld lights similar to CA. This is something that needs to be changed by the legislature, not the WDFW Commission

[bigtex]

Would it matter if the rifle was unloaded while walking with the flash light?

The law simply says "possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow" Doesn't say loaded firearm

[Knocker of rocks]

All three examples rely on intent and action.  In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walking

Hunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "hows hunting?" Hunter says "good"

Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.

In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.

How's can mean "how is" or how was".  In this case the past tense would be operative, because the hunter is clearly not hunting, he is talking to a cop in the parking lot.

Fail

[Curly]

I for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.

My question is why have those cases stood up in court?  My guess is because the officer believed the hunter was lying to him and then the judge only believed the officer and not the hunter.  The hunter hardly had a chance once he was cited.  The judge isn't likely to go against the officer's judgement.  If the officer had decided to cite smalldog (unjustly in my opinion based on what he says here) I'm sure the judge would have agreed with the officer even though neither the officer or the judge would have had any proof that he was spotlighting.

For officers to cite for spotlighting while a guy walks out with a flashlight really is crazy, even if they technically can write them up for it and get a judge to agree.  It doesn't make it right just because it gets held up in court.  If that isn't injustice, I don't know what is.

I always unload my rifle and soon as shooting hours are over, just so I can't get accused of hunting after hours.  But I really shouldn't have to unload; I could keep it loaded for personal protection, but I fear that some officer might accuse me of being a liar and write me up.  This thread proves that some LEO's consider everyone to be liars.

[bigtex]

All three examples rely on intent and action.  In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walking

Hunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "hows hunting?" Hunter says "good"

Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.

In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.

How's can mean "how is" or how was".  In this case the past tense would be operative, because the hunter is clearly not hunting, he is talking to a cop in the parking lot.

Fail

Ok knocker to make you happy. "How is the hunting"

[TheHunt]

I have a question which came up while fishing.

Some of us were fishing and a friend caught a nice hatchery steelhead. My buddy pulled out the spring loaded scale to weigh the fish. 

OK, so when you check an archer his draw weight do you use the same type of tool?  There was all sort of discussion on the water regarding the accuracy of those type weight measuring tools.  Is the spring loaded tool still used by the agency?  If so, what is the +/- differnce you put into the reading for accuracy?

[bigtex]

I for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.

My question is why have those cases stood up in court?

Because under the law if the officer can prove you were a) hunting big game b) in "possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow" and c) having a spotlight, other artificial light, or night vision equipment

Then the law is violated. Like I said, the law isn't like Oregon's where the light must have hit an animal. If you meet those three standards then you have violated the law.

Again, I want to say this, in this situation I would not have cited the individual unless there was overwhelming proof he was still hunting. If it was a guy simply walking out of the woods I wouldn't have thought anything of it. But like I said, this is where the intent of the law and the color of the law comes into play. Color of the law is simply if you meet those three things I posted then you can be charged.

[idahohuntr]

on the flashlight stuff     

I would hope if a LEO for wdfw wrote a ticket to a guy who was hunting and used a flashlight to get out at night that LEO would be fired immediately.

This kind of stupid bs is just another reason to NEVER, EVER under any circumstance give any info to a warden other than what you are legally required to...a license, any game etc.  He asks when, where, how...tell him NOTHING! You do not have to answer any questions.  Bigtex asks me how the hunting is/was etc...I will be happy to hand him a phone number to speak with my lawyer. 

[Knocker of rocks]

All three examples rely on intent and action.  In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walking

Hunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "hows hunting?" Hunter says "good"

Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.

In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.

How's can mean "how is" or how was".  In this case the past tense would be operative, because the hunter is clearly not hunting, he is talking to a cop in the parking lot.

Fail

Ok knocker to make you happy. "How is the hunting"

Words and inflection are important.  What you say can be used against you

[Knocker of rocks]

I for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.

My question is why have those cases stood up in court?

Because under the law if the officer can prove you were a) hunting big game b) in "possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow" and c) having a spotlight, other artificial light, or night vision equipment

Then the law is violated. Like I said, the law isn't like Oregon's where the light must have hit an animal. If you meet those three standards then you have violated the law.

Again, I want to say this, in this situation I would not have cited the individual unless there was overwhelming proof he was still hunting. If it was a guy simply walking out of the woods I wouldn't have thought anything of it. But like I said, this is where the intent of the law and the color of the law comes into play. Color of the law is simply if you meet those three things I posted then you can be charged.

We don't know whether they have or not