Senate Bill 6278 Mistakenly Kill Big Game

[bigtex]

Senate Bill 6278 will be introduced this week and is sponsored by Senator Ericksen. The bill would make it a defense that the hunter killed a big game animal due to mistaken sex. The law would not apply to bear, elk, threatened, and endangered wildlife.

(5)(a) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection
(1)(b) of this section if the hunter kills big game due to a mistaken belief about the sex of the animal and:
(i) The killing occurred during an open season for the species;
(ii) The hunter had all licenses, tags, or permits necessary to lawfully hunt the species; and
(iii) The hunter follows the procedural requirements defined in (b) of this subsection. (b) Any hunter claiming the affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) must:
(i) Immediately remove all of the entrails of any edible big game and tag the animal in the manner prescribed by the department;
(ii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, report the kill to the department by telephone or electronic communication;
(iii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, deliver the entire carcass, less entrails, to any fish and wildlife officer within the county the kill occurred for disposition and provide a written, sworn statement to the officer explaining when, where, and how the mistake occurred; and
(iv) Within ten days of the killing, provide the department full payment of restitution. Restitution is the same as the fee for the license proscribed for the species killed pursuant to RCW 77.32.450.
(c) The affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) does not apply to the killing of a bear, elk, or threatened or endangered species as designated by the commission.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6278&year=2013

[bigtex]

I am opposed to this bill for several reasons.

1- What is "mistaken belief about the sex of the animal"? Does that mean you shot a doe in a buck unit, or does that mean you shot a 2pt in a 3pt unit?

2- Restitution. So the civil fine for illegally killing a non-trophy deer is $2,000, but the restitution under this bill would be the equivalent of a hunting license? So deer are worth less then a $100 now?

[j_h_nimrod]

I follow your thinking, bigtex. I vote no, the bill is vague and dies not address an issue that is apparent.

[pianoman9701]

It seems like the intent of the bill is to acknowledge that mistakes can be made and if someone goes through the proper reporting procedures without having already been busted, he's not treated the same as a poacher. It sounds like it would encourage more ethical behavior with those making a mistake that might otherwise cost them a pretty big amount of money. It's not like we need the money from fines. Fines in wildlife violations are more a function of deterrent than paying for anything. At least at first glance, I'm not convinced this is a bad bill. 

[danderson]

At first glance this bill sounds reasonable,  mistakes can happen, but identification of your target is key to hunting, I vote NO !

[bearpaw]

I like the bill, but think it should be more inclusive to read as follows:

The bill would make it a defense that the hunter killed a big game animal due to mistaken sex or mistaken number of antler points. The law would not apply to bear, elk, threatened, and endangered wildlife.

(5)(a) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection
(1)(b) of this section if the hunter kills big game due to a mistaken belief about the sex of the animal or mistaken number of antler pointsand:
(i) The killing occurred during an open season for the species;
(ii) The hunter had all licenses, tags, or permits necessary to lawfully hunt the species; and
(iii) The hunter follows the procedural requirements defined in (b) of this subsection. (b) Any hunter claiming the affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) must:
(i) Immediately remove all of the entrails of any edible big game and tag the animal in the manner prescribed by the department;
(ii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, report the kill to the department by telephone or electronic communication;
(iii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, deliver the entire carcass, less entrails, to any fish and wildlife officer within the county the kill occurred for disposition and provide a written, sworn statement to the officer explaining when, where, and how the mistake occurred; and
(iv) Within ten days of the killing, provide the department full payment of restitution. Restitution is the same as the fee for the license proscribed for the species killed pursuant to RCW 77.32.450.
(c) The affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) does not apply to the killing of a bear, elk, or threatened or endangered species as designated by the commission.

It seems to me that if a hunter makes a mistake they will be more inclined to do the right thing and that less wildlife will be wasted. I think this is the way laws should be designed, where the intentional law breaker still is reprimanded to the full extent of the law, but a person making a mistake is encouraged to do the right thing and turn themselves in. 

The mistaken violator still pays a fine and must give up their tag for the season when they tag the mistaken animal, then they must go through the process of reporting and delivering the animal, nobody is going to purposely do this, a person who does this will avoid making the mistake again.

[Bob33]

You're kidding me. I shot a bull during an antlerless hunt, and I get off scott free?

[bearpaw]

First of all it scares the heck out of me every year when I have cow elk hunters shooting at a herd of elk that contains spikes. I am afraid that one day a hunter will accidentally hit the wrong animal.

You're kidding me. I shot a bull during an antlerless hunt, and I get off scott free?

How would this happen if you are honest under this bill?

Currently if a hunter accidentally shoots a bull there are 3 options of thought:
 - Leave the bull and say nothing, hope you don't get caught
 - Take the bull and say nothing, hope you don't get caught
 - Turn yourself in and receive your punishment

With the bill there is a 4th option:
 - Turn yourself in, pay a minimal fine, lose your tag for the season, save the meat from wastage, and try not to do that ever again.

[Bob33]

First of all it scares the heck out of me every year when I have cow elk hunters shooting at a herd of elk that contains spikes. I am afraid that one day a hunter will accidentally hit the wrong animal.

You're kidding me. I shot a bull during an antlerless hunt, and I get off scott free?

How would this happen if you are honest under this bill?

Currently if a hunter accidentally shoots a bull there are 3 options of thought:
 - Leave the bull and say nothing, hope you don't get caught
 - Take the bull and say nothing, hope you don't get caught
 - Turn yourself in and receive your punishment

With the bill there is a 4th option:
 - Turn yourself in, pay a minimal fine, lose your tag for the season, save the meat from wastage, and try not to do that ever again.

If there is a mandatory fine and loss of tag, then I would be more inclined to support it. What is the "minimal" fine?

[bearpaw]

Read the highlighted language:

Senate Bill 6278 will be introduced this week and is sponsored by Senator Ericksen. The bill would make it a defense that the hunter killed a big game animal due to mistaken sex. The law would not apply to bear, elk, threatened, and endangered wildlife.

(5)(a) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection
(1)(b) of this section if the hunter kills big game due to a mistaken belief about the sex of the animal and:
(i) The killing occurred during an open season for the species;
(ii) The hunter had all licenses, tags, or permits necessary to lawfully hunt the species; and
(iii) The hunter follows the procedural requirements defined in (b) of this subsection. (b) Any hunter claiming the affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) must:
(i) Immediately remove all of the entrails of any edible big game and tag the animal in the manner prescribed by the department;
(ii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, report the kill to the department by telephone or electronic communication;
(iii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, deliver the entire carcass, less entrails, to any fish and wildlife officer within the county the kill occurred for disposition and provide a written, sworn statement to the officer explaining when, where, and how the mistake occurred; and
(iv) Within ten days of the killing, provide the department full payment of restitution. Restitution is the same as the fee for the license proscribed for the species killed pursuant to RCW 77.32.450.
(c) The affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) does not apply to the killing of a bear, elk, or threatened or endangered species as designated by the commission.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6278&year=2013

[bearpaw]

I don't understand why they didn't include elk? I think "elk" should be included and that "mistaken antler point count" should be included.

[Bob33]

I don't understand why they didn't include elk? I think "elk" should be included and that "mistaken antler point count" should be included.

Indeed. Elk should not be excluded.

[kentrek]

I don't understand why they didn't include elk? I tgetting  "elk" should be included and that "mistaken antler point count" should be included.

 

I know of a couple stories about people getting caught up in one situation or the other, ending up with the wrong critter down and getting the book thrown at them after they turned themselves in..

Only the most honest turn themselves in, why punish them ??

[bearpaw]

Please let me tell a story:

Two years ago during the late whitetail buck season I had a hunter who had passed numerous small whitetail bucks, he had also seen some mule deer in the area and had passed some mule deer bucks. It was second to the last day and he decided he was going to shoot one of the smaller whitetail bucks he had been seeing. I get a call that he had an animal down but made a mistake. Turns out that after passing all those small whitetail bucks and passing on mule deer bucks he accidentally shot a small fork horn mule deer. This was without doubt a complete accident.

I told him that the local warden was a very fair man for those that try to follow the law. He called and turned himself in, I offered to skin and gut the deer and bring it in. The game warden told the hunter that it could have cost him several thousand dollars, but since he was honest he was only writing him for an infraction. It cost the guy less than $200 and the deer went to the local food bank.

The hunter will try to never let that happen again but he felt good about being honest and doing the right thing. If the warden had hammered him for several thousand dollars the hunter would not have felt good about doing the right thing.

The bottom line is that the deer was dead, no action was going to bring the deer back to life. The fact that the warden was discretionary with the punishment reaffirmed my belief and the hunter's belief in doing the right thing.

This bill is a positive step in that same direction.

[bigtex]

I told him that the local warden was a very fair man for those that try to follow the law. He called and turned himself in, I offered to skin and gut the deer and bring it in. The game warden told the hunter that it could have cost him several thousand dollars, but since he was honest he was only writing him for an infraction. It cost the guy less than $200 and the deer went to the local food bank.

Here's the thing, under current law there is no law an officer can cite you for in such situation that is an infraction. My bet is the officer cited the individual for some type of "unclassified wildlife" violation. Had that individual taken it to court he would've easily won, but who is going to take that to court when they know they could've faced gross misdemeanor charges?

Right now the only law that stands similar to this nature is if you shoot a 1x2 in a true spike area for elk, you will face an infraction instead of a gross misdemeanor. The situation you listed would be the equivalent of an officer pulling you over for going 45 in a 25, but citing you for going 40 in a 25.