WDFW LE Great Resource for HuntWA - Please Be Respectful

[bobcat]

The problem I see with the enforcement of a whole lot of the hunting laws is that game wardens are able to make the determination that a person is hunting at a particular point in time, even if there is no proof. That's what I don't understand. You can't get convicted for murder without evidence. But you can be charged with a hunting violation with absolutely no evidence other than what a game warden "thinks."

If they would change just one thing it would help to solve this issue: simply change the definition of hunting so that in order to be hunting a person must shoot something or at least shoot at something. Either that or the person must admit that he was hunting at that time, and it would be best if the game warden could record the conversation.

I don't like that game wardens can write tickets based only on opinions and no facts.

[Special T]

Many people do NOT utilize thier RIGHT to remain silent...

Some years ago PETA hopped in a rubber Zodiac in the Skagit river delta to disrupt  duck hunting. Fortunately the  Duck hunters knew more than the PETA protesters. It was a Flat calm day with NO wind or other weather. A lot of Duck hunters limited out because those jack wagons kept driving their boat through the refuge and any where ducks congregated!  It could have been before this law, however the wardens didn't do squat.... Perhaps they were doing the hunters a favor? 

[Bob33]

"You can't get convicted for murder without evidence. But you can be charged with a hunting violation with absolutely no evidence other than what a game warden "thinks."

Charged and convicted are not the same. Many who are charged with murder are not convicted. Hunters charged with a violation can also fight it in the legal system.

Also, I suspect there are quite a few individuals in prison for murder whose convictions were based on shaky circumstantial "evidence".

[bobcat]

Yes, you may not get convicted if you pay an attorney and take it to court. But who wants to do that for something that's probably less than a $500 ticket? A ticket that you didn't deserve in the first place. So you pay a lawyer $5,000 to save $500? All this for a citation such as the scenario being discussed where a person could be cited for hunting with an artificial light when all he was doing is using a flashlight to get out of the woods after dark.

[bigtex]

Yes, you may not get convicted if you pay an attorney and take it to court. But who wants to do that for something that's probably less than a $500 ticket? A ticket that you didn't deserve in the first place. So you pay a lawyer $5,000 to save $500? All this for a citation such as the scenario being discussed where a person could be cited for hunting with an artificial light when all he was doing is using a flashlight to get out of the woods after dark.

The days of tickets for big game are gone. The only tickets issued for any hunting violations are hunter orange, closed season birds if you haven't killed anything (which is rare if you think about it), and hunting small game/birds having a license and not possessing it and not possessing birds/wildlife. All other violations aren't a ticket with a fine but rather a mandatory court date.

[bobcat]

Yes, you may not get convicted if you pay an attorney and take it to court. But who wants to do that for something that's probably less than a $500 ticket? A ticket that you didn't deserve in the first place. So you pay a lawyer $5,000 to save $500? All this for a citation such as the scenario being discussed where a person could be cited for hunting with an artificial light when all he was doing is using a flashlight to get out of the woods after dark.

The days of tickets for big game are gone. The only tickets issued for any hunting violations are hunter orange and closed season birds/small game if you haven't killed anything (which is rare if you think about it). All other violations aren't a ticket with a fine but rather a mandatory court date.

Okay, but I still wouldn't hire a lawyer to get off on a relatively small penalty. I'd be forced to go to court without a lawyer because I couldn't afford one. And I'm sure as heck not going to try to argue the case with the judge. I would simply accept the consequences and pay the penalty, whatever that may be.

The point is, I don't think a person should be cited for a hunting violation unless there is actual proof that he did it. Seems like common sense, but then we hear that a guy could be charged with hunting with an artificial light just because he's walking in the woods with a flashlight while it's dark,  and the game warden thought he was hunting when in fact he was not.

[Special T]

Bobcat you point out how backwards the system actually operates. It intimidates and taxes normally honest people who make a mistake, or possible just get charged with them. REAL wildlife crimes as reported in Operation Cody get a slap on the wrist, or no charges pressed. What this really means is a TAX only if you think you have something to lose.  If your a real winner with no job, assets to seize, or other "normal" ways to punish you, there is no way of actually punishing you.

[Bob33]

Yes, you may not get convicted if you pay an attorney and take it to court. But who wants to do that for something that's probably less than a $500 ticket? A ticket that you didn't deserve in the first place. So you pay a lawyer $5,000 to save $500? All this for a citation such as the scenario being discussed where a person could be cited for hunting with an artificial light when all he was doing is using a flashlight to get out of the woods after dark.

If there is no evidence you did anything wrong, why would you need to pay an attorney to defend yourself? Go and tell the judge there is no evidence.

[smalldog]

I looked over the game laws very close and I did not see where I am not  aloud  to take my bow with me when I am looking for my buck deer after dark. It only talks about any modern firearm season. Like I said bowhunters like to take pictures with their game with their weapon before they bone them out or quarter them. I don't hunt right next to a road, I like to hunt in places like down in over road sides into big swamp bottoms. You either eat the deer their or cut it up. Bows do not weigh the same as a rifle, they are light.

Please show me where I am breaking the law, please show me.

[bobcat]

I looked over the game laws very close and I did not see where I am not  aloud  to take my bow with me when I am looking for my buck deer after dark. It only talks about any modern firearm season. Like I said bowhunters like to take pictures with their game with their weapon before they bone them out or quarter them. I don't hunt right next to a road, I like to hunt in places like down in over road sides into big swamp bottoms. You either eat the deer their or cut it up. Bows do not weigh the same as a rifle, they are light.

Please show me where I am breaking the law, please show me.

You wouldn't be breaking the law, unless the game warden thought you were hunting with your bow at night.

[idahohuntr]

Actually the hunting harassment law when it comes to harasses/drives or disturbs wildlife can easily be won by a defense attorney.
RCW 77.15.210
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish[, shellfish,] or wildlife if the person:
(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or

A hunter may think that the anti-hunter showed up and honked his horn and the geese flew away because of the horn but how can an officer prove that? How can an officer prove that the geese flew away because the horn was honked?

All a defense attorney will say is, well geese are birds and they fly all day long, how can you prove that the geese flew away simply because the horn honk? Problem is we can’t, we don't know if the geese flew away because the horn honked or just because they wanted to leave. And this is where it can be difficult to prove.

WDFW Officers obviously don't want to have hunters being harassed but there is a difference between the situation I posted about an officer asking the hunter how the hunting is and hunter harassment. If an officer asks the individual “how is the hunting?” and the hunter says good (or whatever) and he has a weapon and a light then that’s pretty concrete evidence and it’s going to be hard for the defense attorney to say the defendant wasn’t hunting when the conversation with the officer says otherwise. Compared to the harassment, officers have to really prove somehow that the wildlife was disturbed or harassed, simply having the bird fly away may be good for hunters to think it’s harassment but like I said, birds fly away all day long, and an average defense attorney will easily say that and most likely win. If an officer wanted to charge someone because they honked a horn and the bird flew away they could, but it will easily be won by the defense attorney, if the prosecutor even files the charges.

And this same exact logic applies to a hunter having a flashlight in the woods.  I can guarantee you I would not even need an attorney to win this one...most wardens are dumber than 2 wheelbarrows full of rocks so It is extremely unlikely a reasonably educated person would not absolutely embarrass them or any prosecutor foolish enough to waste a judges time with such a bs citation. 

This issue is so frickin stupid I would absolutely love for somebody like bigtex to come write me a ticket this fall WHEN I CARRY MY BOW AND MY VERY BRIGHT HEADLAMP IS ON WELL PAST LEGAL SHOOTING HOURS AS I WALK BACK TO MY TRUCK!  If any wardens on this site PM me I will be happy to tell you exactly where and when to wait by my truck during archery season so that you can personally observe me committing this atrocious crime.    Oh, and to sweeten the pot, if you ask me "how is the hunting" I will answer "Excellent". 
 

[Knocker of rocks]

Actually the hunting harassment law when it comes to harasses/drives or disturbs wildlife can easily be won by a defense attorney.
RCW 77.15.210
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish[, shellfish,] or wildlife if the person:
(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or

A hunter may think that the anti-hunter showed up and honked his horn and the geese flew away because of the horn but how can an officer prove that? How can an officer prove that the geese flew away because the horn was honked?

All a defense attorney will say is, well geese are birds and they fly all day long, how can you prove that the geese flew away simply because the horn honk? Problem is we can’t, we don't know if the geese flew away because the horn honked or just because they wanted to leave. And this is where it can be difficult to prove.

WDFW Officers obviously don't want to have hunters being harassed but there is a difference between the situation I posted about an officer asking the hunter how the hunting is and hunter harassment. If an officer asks the individual “how is the hunting?” and the hunter says good (or whatever) and he has a weapon and a light then that’s pretty concrete evidence and it’s going to be hard for the defense attorney to say the defendant wasn’t hunting when the conversation with the officer says otherwise. Compared to the harassment, officers have to really prove somehow that the wildlife was disturbed or harassed, simply having the bird fly away may be good for hunters to think it’s harassment but like I said, birds fly away all day long, and an average defense attorney will easily say that and most likely win. If an officer wanted to charge someone because they honked a horn and the bird flew away they could, but it will easily be won by the defense attorney, if the prosecutor even files the charges.

And this same exact logic applies to a hunter having a flashlight in the woods.  I can guarantee you I would not even need an attorney to win this one...most wardens are dumber than 2 wheelbarrows full of rocks so It is extremely unlikely a reasonably educated person would not absolutely embarrass them or any prosecutor foolish enough to waste a judges time with such a bs citation. 

This issue is so frickin stupid I would absolutely love for somebody like bigtex to come write me a ticket this fall WHEN I CARRY MY BOW AND MY VERY BRIGHT HEADLAMP IS ON WELL PAST LEGAL SHOOTING HOURS AS I WALK BACK TO MY TRUCK!  If any wardens on this site PM me I will be happy to tell you exactly where and when to wait by my truck during archery season so that you can personally observe me committing this atrocious crime.    Oh, and to sweeten the pot, if you ask me "how is the hunting" I will answer "Excellent". 

If you are in the parking lot of a restaurant, walking away from the restaurant, when another future patron asks you "how is the food?" no matter how you answer, by Tex's logic that is proof that you are guilty of talking with your mouth full.

[Curly]

smalldog- what you described in your post on page 9 about hiking back to your truck after legal shooting hours...millions of hunters use flashlights every year to return to camp (or their vehicle) safely.  For anyone to even remotely suggest that by having a weapon and a flashlight as you return from a legal hunt that you are breaking a law is ridiculous.  I don't give a ____ what any administrative code or law or statute says...You get a ticket for walking back to your truck holding a weapon and a flashlight...there better be a whole lot more evidence/story before any judge, prosecutor whatever is going to even consider hearing such a matter.  So...while a warden may feel they can write you a ticket on a technical interpretation of the law...I would tell them technically, they can kiss my @$$ because there is no way in hell you or I would ever have to pay that ticket!

    

[Curly]

Yes, you may not get convicted if you pay an attorney and take it to court. But who wants to do that for something that's probably less than a $500 ticket? A ticket that you didn't deserve in the first place. So you pay a lawyer $5,000 to save $500? All this for a citation such as the scenario being discussed where a person could be cited for hunting with an artificial light when all he was doing is using a flashlight to get out of the woods after dark.

If there is no evidence you did anything wrong, why would you need to pay an attorney to defend yourself? Go and tell the judge there is no evidence.

But who is the judge more likely to believe...........the warden or the hunter? 

[KFhunter]

I looked over the game laws very close and I did not see where I am not  aloud  to take my bow with me when I am looking for my buck deer after dark. It only talks about any modern firearm season. Like I said bowhunters like to take pictures with their game with their weapon before they bone them out or quarter them. I don't hunt right next to a road, I like to hunt in places like down in over road sides into big swamp bottoms. You either eat the deer their or cut it up. Bows do not weigh the same as a rifle, they are light.

Please show me where I am breaking the law, please show me.

Why would you take your bow with you?  I get you want to take pictures, but you're leaving your truck at night with a flashlight and hunting weapon.  I wouldn't do it.  You could arrive back to your truck, but to leave it at night and head into the woods with a light and weapon would be tough to explain.

You can't shoot the animal after legal shooting hours if you found it alive,  you could expose yourself to a whole bunch of hunting violations  (think spotlighting, poaching..serious stuff)

Technically if you found the animal alive you are legally obligated to let it continue to suffer all night long and shoot it during legal hours the next morning, or call a WDFW officer to seek permission.

If you shot it on the last day of the season then your ONLY option is to notify WDFW officer and seek permission to harvest it.