Senate Bill 6278 Mistakenly Kill Big Game

[bigtex]

Senator Braun is now a cosponsor of this bill.

[bearpaw]

Senator Braun is now a cosponsor of this bill.

   Hope it picks up steam.

[bearpaw]

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.

I think the problem with law enforcement is that they always want more laws for criminals but fail to consider how it affects the average citizen. This is a chance to do something positive for the honest guy who makes a mistake and isn't really a criminal. Rather than simply be opposed, perhaps try to offer a solution for the reasons you oppose the bill. 

Although a different topic, I think this poster depicts the error in LE thinking.

[bigtex]

As I've already said, there have been numerous bills similar to this nature throughout the years. Most of the bills had a provision that if you were found to have "mistakenly/accidentally" shot the animal you would be cited for an infraction rather then the gross misdemeanor charge you currently would face. This bill doesn't even involve receiving an infraction, but rather simply writing a $39 check to WDFW.

[bearpaw]

As I've already said, there have been numerous bills similar to this nature throughout the years. Most of the bills had a provision that if you were found to have "mistakenly/accidentally" shot the animal you would be cited for an infraction rather then the gross misdemeanor charge you currently would face. This bill doesn't even involve receiving an infraction, but rather simply writing a $39 check to WDFW.

So advocate for a higher fine, but why be opposed to the whole idea? 

[bigtex]

As I've already said, there have been numerous bills similar to this nature throughout the years. Most of the bills had a provision that if you were found to have "mistakenly/accidentally" shot the animal you would be cited for an infraction rather then the gross misdemeanor charge you currently would face. This bill doesn't even involve receiving an infraction, but rather simply writing a $39 check to WDFW.

So advocate for a higher fine, but why be opposed to the whole idea? 

There is no fine under the current bill. A fine is something that is handed down by a judge or through a court proceeding (such as a citation). The $39 for a deer is not a fine, and nowhere in the bill does it say it's a fine, it says it's restitution.

[bigtex]

It looks like the last time a similar bill was introduced was in 2008 and from what I can tell the bill either didn't make it out of committee or never even had a hearing. The bill essentially said that if an officer deemed the taking of wildlife (this including all wildlife, even trapping) to be accidental the officer could issue a natural resource infraction. The bill said the infraction would be $150, however even though the bill says $150, the state then must add "statutory assessments" to all citations which more then double the fine, so this ticket would've been a little over $300. At that time the bill read:

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1   (1) The legislature finds that enforcement of the state's fish and game laws is an essential component to professional wildlife management. However, the legislature further finds that there are instances when a violation of the state's hunting laws occurs not due to an intentional attempt to increase one's success in the field, but due to honest confusion about the rules or understandable mistakes made in the pursuit of game.
(2) The legislature further finds that enforcement officers of the department of fish and wildlife have no option but to cite these well-meaning citizens with a criminal infraction, even if the individual has contacted the fish and wildlife officer directly and self-reported his or her activity. This lack of flexibility or discretion can discourage honest hunters from contacting the authorities when mistakes are made and lead to an overall apprehension of engaging in outdoor sports.
(3) It is the intent of the legislature, by way of this act, to provide the field enforcement of the department of fish and wildlife with additional enforcement tools, other than criminal sanctions, to properly handle situations where well-meaning and otherwise law-abiding hunters mistakenly, and with no intent to violate a hunting law, find themselves in violation of the fish and wildlife enforcement code.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 2   A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW to read as follows:
(1) If mitigating circumstances exist, the responding fish and wildlife officer may, as an alternative to citing an individual for a violation of RCW 77.15.190, 77.15.240, 77.15.400, 77.15.410, or 77.15.430, instead issue a noncriminal natural resource infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.
(2) The commission shall identify examples of appropriate mitigating circumstances to aid a responding fish and wildlife officer in the implementation of this section. Examples of appropriate mitigating circumstances may include instances when the suspect self-reports the activity giving rise to the violation, and where the activity resulted from a mistake or is an unintended result.
(3) Regardless of examples identified by the commission, the discretion to issue either a noncriminal natural resource infraction under this section or a criminal citation under the applicable statutory authority belongs to the responding fish and wildlife officer and is based on the individual circumstances of the situation being investigated.
(4) The penalty for a natural resource infraction issued under this section is one hundred fifty dollars.

[bearpaw]

As I've already said, there have been numerous bills similar to this nature throughout the years. Most of the bills had a provision that if you were found to have "mistakenly/accidentally" shot the animal you would be cited for an infraction rather then the gross misdemeanor charge you currently would face. This bill doesn't even involve receiving an infraction, but rather simply writing a $39 check to WDFW.

So advocate for a higher fine, but why be opposed to the whole idea? 

There is no fine under the current bill. A fine is something that is handed down by a judge or through a court proceeding (such as a citation). The $39 for a deer is not a fine, and nowhere in the bill does it say it's a fine, it says it's restitution.

my bad... 

So advocate for a higher restitution, but something that is far less than $2000, I don't see how we expect people to be honest if the cost is $2000 for being honest.

[bigtex]

I prefer the 2008 bill over the 2014 bill. It looks like the 2008 bill had a lot more officer discretion where the 2014 bill is essentially forcing the hand of the officer.

[lokidog]

As I've already said, there have been numerous bills similar to this nature throughout the years. Most of the bills had a provision that if you were found to have "mistakenly/accidentally" shot the animal you would be cited for an infraction rather then the gross misdemeanor charge you currently would face. This bill doesn't even involve receiving an infraction, but rather simply writing a $39 check to WDFW.

So advocate for a higher fine, but why be opposed to the whole idea? 

There is no fine under the current bill. A fine is something that is handed down by a judge or through a court proceeding (such as a citation). The $39 for a deer is not a fine, and nowhere in the bill does it say it's a fine, it says it's restitution.

$39 seems stupid low for a "mistake" when I would have to pay about $70 to the state for the "cost" of a second deer doe.     I do agree with Bearpaw above.

[bobcat]

$39 seems stupid low for a "mistake" when I would have to pay about $70 to the state for the "cost" of a second deer doe.     I do agree with Bearpaw above.

Well, it's not just the $39- you also lose your deer tag and don't have a deer for the freezer.

[washingtonmuley]

I think that bill would increase the amount of trigger happy people in the woods. I certainly don't see it making the populated hunting areas any safer.

[Curly]

The Bill wouldn't affect the guy that thinks he's shooting a 3 point and the buck ends up being less than a 3.  If the deer ends up being a doe then, he's going to get lucky under this Bill. 

I don't really see the need for this specific bill.  But I do see the need for officer discretion when a hunter makes an honest mistake. 

[bobcat]

I do see a need for this bill or something similar. Why should the penalty for intentional poaching be the same as the penalty for a hunter making a mistake?

[bigtex]

This bill has a hearing on January 28th in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Parks at 1:30 PM

The bill report definitely clarifies that this bill is simply in regards to mistaken sex and not antler points....