Senate Bill 6278 Mistakenly Kill Big Game

[ICEMAN]

Look at how this new law would affect hunting.

I guess I could throw caution to the wind and shoot at moving game, see what I dropped and then decide what to do.  I can blaze away at a two point in a three point area just so I can go see if it has a 1" guard?

Can't I just go start gutting and tell any guy who happens by that I made a mistake and am turning myself in, as soon as I pack this deer out and get it home?

How is an enforcement officer going to know if some jackwagon is taking a deer home with the intention of turning himself in or not? Is the hunter going to be cited for poaching nonetheless?

Bad law.

Encourages poor decision making.

Provides an excuse for all unscrupulous hunters.

Will cause more court litigation, lawyers having to prove that their client "was going to turn himself in...honest he was..."

I bet these cases get dropped, more deer and elk are inadvertently killed, and more poachers walk free.

Nope, bad law, I would not support it.

[buckfvr]

It would become a freeforall..................

[Curly]

It could potentially become a free for all for deer areas where any buck is legal.  Then a guy could shoot and check for sex later and pay a minimal fine.  So, much of the blacktail areas there could be idiots just shooting at movement/sound hoping to hit a deer.  (I don't think a lot of guys would do that, but maybe a small handful..........and that would be scary).

Mule deer areas are all 3 point min so the Bill shouldn't have that effect in those areas.  I don't see how a person could accidentally shoot a doe if he thinks it is a 3-point. (except in a case like Bearpaw mentioned where the guys scope was way off).  The way I read the bill, it wouldn't help a guy that accidentally shoots a buck with the wrong antler configuration.

I don't like the Bill as written, though I do wish there was some way for a guy that makes an honest mistake to not get raked over the coals.  There needs to be a difference in the punishment for honest mistakes vs. an actual poacher.

[JLS]

Look at how this new law would affect hunting.

I guess I could throw caution to the wind and shoot at moving game, see what I dropped and then decide what to do.  I can blaze away at a two point in a three point area just so I can go see if it has a 1" guard?

Can't I just go start gutting and tell any guy who happens by that I made a mistake and am turning myself in, as soon as I pack this deer out and get it home?

How is an enforcement officer going to know if some jackwagon is taking a deer home with the intention of turning himself in or not? Is the hunter going to be cited for poaching nonetheless?

Bad law.

Encourages poor decision making.

Provides an excuse for all unscrupulous hunters.

Will cause more court litigation, lawyers having to prove that their client "was going to turn himself in...honest he was..."

I bet these cases get dropped, more deer and elk are inadvertently killed, and more poachers walk free.

Nope, bad law, I would not support it.

Well said, I agree.

[snowpack]

I'm trying to come up with any legit examples for this bill.  The only animals I can think of that we are restricted in shooting male vs female are deer and elk (kind of---I've heard of freak does with antlers, they'd be legal because the regs say antlered/antlerless).  Seems like a bad law to me.  If this type of target misidentification flies, imagine what is next....saying it is okay to shoot elk during deer season?

[Whitpirate]

I would rather see a guy be honest and receive a small fine than alienate him with a huge unnecessary penalty. 

So in your opinion is $39 restitution for a deer, enough? Because this is what the bill states..

So is 2x the tag cost enough?  Arbitrary number either way wouldn't you agree?  Where does the restitution money go for conservation?  Or is it funding for more officers?  In the fine standard "follow the money" I can't seem to figure that out when I try to research the black hole that is WA state gov't.

[pd]

I'm trying to come up with any legit examples for this bill.  The only animals I can think of that we are restricted in shooting male vs female are deer and elk (kind of---I've heard of freak does with antlers, they'd be legal because the regs say antlered/antlerless).  Seems like a bad law to me.  If this type of target misidentification flies, imagine what is next....saying it is okay to shoot elk during deer season?

Snowpack, this might be a little off topic, but situations like you describe do happen.  A relative of mine shot an antlered whitetail doe (in Idaho) 3 seasons ago.  This unit in general season is open to antlered whitetail, antlered mule deer, and antler-less white tail (in other words, any deer except antler less mule deer).  Thus, the animal was legal, but a freak.  Had the doe been a mule deer, however, they might have had problems.  The wardens at the check station had a great time with the deer, taking DNA samples.  Otherwise, all was fine.

These things do happen--it isn't that rare.

[Special T]

This is BAD law.  I do think that some provision for being honest and turning oneself in should be out there. Im am not sure how it would read however. I know people that have been fined steeply for turning themselves in, and i have to 2nd what kazekurt has said.  In other states i have seen provisions for people shooting button bucks in doe only seasons/tags where they turned the meat in and called the warden and did not get in any real trouble.

IMO  the question is do you want people walking away from accidentlay killed animals (because its happening plenty right now) or do you want to use the animal and at least know how many more animals are being harvested?

[bearpaw]

I would rather see a guy be honest and receive a small fine than alienate him with a huge unnecessary penalty. 

So in your opinion is $39 restitution for a deer, enough? Because this is what the bill states..

I already read the bill and understand what the fine stated is. Considering that the person must tag the animal, gives up his hunting season, and delivers the animal to a food distribution location, and confesses to LE, I think a minimal fine is enough. I would be fine with anything up to $200.

I see $2000 fine on an honest person as reason enough for many hunters to say to heck with being honest. That's not how you create partnerships with hunters. 

This is why I agree with the proposed language.

[buckfvr]

A 2K fine for an honest person is a drop kick in the  . 

I would say when and if a second violation occurs........theres your reason for a huge increase.

To me, it just seems like another creative way to take more money from folks........seems its all our state wants to do is fleece the public...........write tickets and take money............sickining.

[bearpaw]

A 2K fine for an honest person is a drop kick in the  . 

I would say when and if a second violation occurs........theres your reason for a huge increase.

To me, it just seems like another creative way to take more money from folks........seems its all our state wants to do is fleece the public...........write tickets and take money............sickining.

   exactly 

The only incentive I see is to not say a word and walk away if someone makes a mistake. As others have eluded, that is what is happening right now. 

[bobcat]

This bill seems okay except like others have said, why not include elk?

It's kind if ridiculous the way it is now- the penalty is the same for a poacher and someone who makes a mistake and turns himself in.

[JODakota]

If for some reason there is a "must" for this bill the restitution needs to be changed.

Under this bill if you accidentally shot a doe in a buck unit you would pay a $39 restitution fee to WDFW which is the fee for a deer tag.

If someone illegally shoots a deer they face gross misdemeanor charges plus a $2,000 civil fine (restitution) to WDFW.

If we must have this bill, make the restitution equal to what the civil fine is, in this case $2,000.

Do you really think that fining a an honest hunter $2000 for turning himself in makes more hunters have a positive view of WDFW and LE in general?

I think it works exactly the opposite, the honest person who turns himself in and gets a lesser fine is more likely to view themselves as a partner in wildlife management.

Under current law the person in this situation faces gross misdemeanor charges (up to a $5,000 criminal fine and 364 days in jail), plus the $2,000 civil fine for a conviction, and will lose their hunting license for 2 years.

So all of that compared to a $2,000 fine is fair. You don't have any criminal record, you can still hunt the next year, and you learned a lesson to better judge what you shot. Under this bill a deer is worth $39.

Well, that is about the cost of the tag...so yeah they are worth that. In fact, there worthless in most other states.

[bigtex]

If for some reason there is a "must" for this bill the restitution needs to be changed.

Under this bill if you accidentally shot a doe in a buck unit you would pay a $39 restitution fee to WDFW which is the fee for a deer tag.

If someone illegally shoots a deer they face gross misdemeanor charges plus a $2,000 civil fine (restitution) to WDFW.

If we must have this bill, make the restitution equal to what the civil fine is, in this case $2,000.

Do you really think that fining a an honest hunter $2000 for turning himself in makes more hunters have a positive view of WDFW and LE in general?

I think it works exactly the opposite, the honest person who turns himself in and gets a lesser fine is more likely to view themselves as a partner in wildlife management.

Under current law the person in this situation faces gross misdemeanor charges (up to a $5,000 criminal fine and 364 days in jail), plus the $2,000 civil fine for a conviction, and will lose their hunting license for 2 years.

So all of that compared to a $2,000 fine is fair. You don't have any criminal record, you can still hunt the next year, and you learned a lesson to better judge what you shot. Under this bill a deer is worth $39.

Well, that is about the cost of the tag...so yeah they are worth that. In fact, there worthless in most other states.

Totally disagree. As an example, the state wastage rules are by fish/animal value. Those with a value under $250 is considered an infraction. Those over $250 is a gross misdemeanor.

If the value of a deer was $2,000 (as the civil fine is) do you think we would have the same amount of hunters as today? Of course not

[Kazekurt]

The law should be rewritten to include other mistake killings but I'm still in agreement with Bearpaw.  I think a 100-200 dollar fine plus lose of you're tag is a decent deterrent but still allows hunters to do the right thing and follow their conscience.  I hate seeing animals wasted and under this scenario the animals could be given to food banks or preferably to lawful hunters holding a tag.  The animal would then be accounted for, a lawful hunter would fill his tag, and the mistaken hunter would lose his tag and a few bucks , but at least be able to sleep at night and hopefully would be more careful in the future.  The law should read that arrangements must be made prior to trsnsporting  the animal and ideally a warden would meet you  at the kill site and take possession of the gutted  animal , or at the nearest rd if you're well off the beaten path.  Any attempt to transport without making prior arrangements  would not qualify  for a reduction and it should be mandatory to report in a timely fashion unless impossible to do so.  Other hunters should be encouraged to report  offenses as usual regardless of whether the person has reported himself.  Anyway, there is no fool proof system and it wont solve all the problems but at least it would create some positive results whereas  the current system seems to only benefit the coyotes.