PETITION TO REMOVE WDFW DIRECTOR ANDERSON, CHIEF CROWN & DEPUTY CHIEF CENCI

[jackmaster]

BIGTEX i am sure the fellas from the forum would be ok with mandatory sentences for wildlife crimes, now i aint talkn about not wearing hunter orange, but anything that was described in uc's book should carry a serious minimum time in the klink

[Gringo31]

One more question...

Who has the authority to revoke privileges? 

[bigtex]

matter of fact they should hire 5 or 6 lawyers and pay them well that their job is to do nothing but try wildlife crimes, it would be their specialty and they would get good bonuses for the more years they put those scud bottom vagrants away for 

Counties prosecute state and county cases, not individual agencies. Even if WDFW hired lawyers, counties would basically have to deputize/appoint them as deputy prosecutors in order for them to prosecute cases on their behalf, I guarantee you there would be a few hold outs, just like how some Sheriff's don't deputize other agencies. You then also have the issue of WDFW arresting the individual and WDFW also prosecuting them, think that will cause an issue? Bet ya it will.

State law does allow the WDFW Commission to ask the Attorney General's Office to prosecute a case when a county prosecutor fails to act, however this is rarely done and obviously it would have to be a significant case in order for WDFW to ask for it.

What about a state mandatory minimun sentence guideline? Please don't tell me it can't be done. If you can have a 3 strikes out guideline, and federal mandatory minimum sentencing guideline for drug users/dealers what could possibly be the issue? Do federal sentecing guidelines have more "teeth" to them??? Can the department/state refer the more serious cases to a federal prosecutor??

I've been a big advocate for mandatory minimum sentences for natural resource offenses, it can certainly be done. But a lot of people (especially on this forum) don't like mandatory minimums.

Regarding the feds, the feds are really limited in what they can prosecute. For the feds to be able to even investigate/look into a case a violation of federal law must occur. Somebody going up to the local tree farm and whipping out 30 elk and leaving them to rot is a terrible offense, but no federal law was violated.

So for "typical" poaching you are simply limited to federally protected species (endangered species, migratory birds, etc), violations that occurred on federal land, or fish/wildlife that was taken unlawfully (anywhere) and transported over certain types of federal land (in WA this includes USFS lands, Rainier and Olympic Parks, and Lake Roosevelt Rec Area.) Outside of those three areas the feds don't really have authority.

And probably the worst thing are federal prosecutor. You don't become an Assistant US Attorney to prosecute natural resource offenders, you become an AUSA to prosecute terrorists, serial killers, and so on. So just like how we're seeing terrible sentences from many counties in WA, for the most part we are seeing terrible sentences from the federal courts in WA as well. Federally, WA is split into two US Court Districts; eastern and western. Surprisingly, the western WA federal prosecutor and court have historically been better than the eastside. It's actually ridiculous how the eastern WA federal court views natural resource cases.

They don't like mandatory minimums for natural resource crimes, or they don't like them for other things?

Natural resources. Every time I bring it up I get booed. Too much of "well what about the guy who made a mistake."

[buckfvr]

BIGTEX i am sure the fellas from the forum would be ok with mandatory sentences for wildlife crimes, now i aint talkn about not wearing hunter orange, but anything that was described in uc's book should carry a serious minimum time in the klink

Yep.....crimes for profit, and crimes of gross wasting...........HANG EM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Special T]

I understand where BT is comeing from, and it appears that the system will NOT work to our liking no matter what. Either we end up having real dirtbags get off easy, OR people who make a mistake get the hammer dropped on them. 
I guess we just lack faith in the system to do what is right since we have not seen in work very well.

Is there some distinction that can be legally made between a "professional" poatcher and some one who just screwed up? Some way to create a minimum sentancing for a habitual poatcher, or someone who has killed/sold multipal animals?

[bigtex]

I understand where BT is comeing from, and it appears that the system will NOT work to our liking no matter what. Either we end up having real dirtbags get off easy, OR people who make a mistake get the hammer dropped on them. 
I guess we just lack faith in the system to do what is right since we have not seen in work very well.

Is there some distinction that can be legally made between a "professional" poatcher and some one who just screwed up? Some way to create a minimum sentancing for a habitual poatcher, or someone who has killed/sold multipal animals?

We will never have one "perfect" answer. Some may like a mandatory minimum fine, others will not. Some want a $2,000 fine, others want it to be $500. We just had the debate about the just passed law for a $2,000 mandatory fine for over length white sturgeon.

To answer your question, not really. The Class C Felony big game offense occurs when you have a previous big game conviction within the previous 10 years and then committed another big game offense, or the actions were apart of "spree killing." But again, no mandatory minimum, there are felony sentencing guidelines, but for the first time felony it's $0 criminal fine and 0 days in jail, the only fine mandatory would be the big game mandatory civil fines.

To top it off, you now have counties (such as Kittitas) where they will plea your big game violations down to a non-criminal infraction, basically pay the mandatory big game fine, be a good boy for 6 months or a year and the would-be criminal gross misdemeanor conviction turns into a ticketable offense. So in this case you couldn't even charge the guy two years later for the felony offense because he wasn't convicted of the gross misdemeanor offense previously, but rather pled it down to a simply ticket.

[vandeman17]

If I knew that EVERY SINGLE PERSON caught and convicted actually had those minimum fines assessed to them then I would be ok with it even if I made an honest mistake and got booked for it. Call it taking one for the team or whatever but if its for the greater good then so be it. The one downside I see with the minimum fines is that it will cause many guys, and rightfully so, to think twice before turning themselves in for an honest mistake. 

[Curly]

It is another issue (mandatory minimums) where laws have to be written to accomplish something that should have happened if common sense was used. 

In other words if the judge had a brain, then mandatory minimums shouldn't be necessary........the judge would throw the book at them and justice could be served.  Apparently mandatory minimums are a necessity as evidenced by what we see these judges handing out.  Justice has not been served in this case........how many people really think the judge did the right thing in this case?    It is really appalling how light some of these sentences are......

What I want to know is how much blame can be laid on Cenci for his actions in the case, and how much blame laid on the prosecutor, and how much on the judge?  Or did Bona Bunphoath have such a great defense attorney that he ended up with such a great deal?      

Basically, I want to know all the details of why the sentence is so light.  Ucwarden - maybe a sequel to Operation Cody is in order......... 

[bigtex]

and how much blame laid on the prosecutor, and how much on the judge? 

People always blame the judge, but who makes the plea deals? Not the judge, it's the prosecutor!

Certainly, a judge can reject a plea deal, problem is there is the unwritten respect "code" between judges and prosecutors to the point where it is basically shocking when a judge rejects a plea deal.

For me, my anger with a lack of sentencing is with the prosecutors, they are the one who charges people, makes plea deals, and in many cases makes the suggestion for the sentences. The judge is basically there to agree and very rarely disagree.

[bowbuild]

Well, my suggestion is someone like you (not sure if you can if you are active duty) or someone like UC compiling a list of grossly under prosecuted cases like this most recent case, and appeal to the public for mandatory minimums for blantant poaching crimes.....Especially where wildlife is used as a source of income for offenders.

You may say that the public is the one that needs to address this, and they should......on the other hand we don't have yrs of dealing with agencies like you, and other law enforcement prosecutors ect. Keep in mind the public "thinks" this is your job, you are professionals regardless of directors, or other staff, and your inner banterings. You know as well as I do that unless you are part of law enforcement and/or a lawyer the general consensus is you don't belong here, you are not one of us....you could be as smart as any attorney, know the law frontward, and backward and be laughed out of the court.....again you don't belong. You MUST know this.

The problem generally in society, and law enforcement is "balance." Law enforcement because you see all the bad, compiles all poachers into one group. There is a difference between a guy that mistakes, or shoots a animal in the heat of the moment, or one that claims to shoots for food. (at least in the publics eyes). Then there is the Cody case, and the kill them all boys that are blatant wildlife exterminators. I would assume you see no difference, and I would also assume you see they should be prosecuted equally.....( hopefully I am assuming wrong)I also think this is where people jump off the boat with law enforcement........regardless of how much people on this board like to reflect a positive role in standing shoulder to shoulder with law enforcement....just my thoughts. Off my soap box.

Bowbuild

[bigtex]

Bowbuild,
Thanks for your suggestion. WDFW has been making progress with the penalty assessments which are civil and are assessed when certain fish/wildlife are taken unlawfully. For many years it was just big game and protected wildlife, couple years ago a few protected birds were added to the list, this year wild salmon/steelhead, green sturgeon, and oversized white sturgeon were added. However, these aren't mandatory minimum criminal fines, but civil.

I pay attention to a lot of law enforcement related topics in the legislature. Quite honestly, there are so few mandatory minimum criminal sentences in WA that it's ridiculous. There is one for possession of marijuana, which now just applies to those under 21, there's one for possessing and providing a fake ID for purposes of purchasing alcohol. About 5 years ago 4 Republican Representatives wanted to make it a mandatory minimum $500 criminal fine for providing/selling alcohol to a minor, it couldn't be deferred, suspended, etc, it was simply you're guilty now pay up. The bill never got a hearing.

[Special T]

I was talking about this topic with a friend last night. Operation "falcon" came up where the feds did a sting on illegal raptor killings and ammased a HUGE ammound of evidence and the whole thing turned into a joke because of the court system. I thought this problem was limited to the WDFW and apparently it is not.

[bowbuild]

Bigtex,

                I hate to include this group, but they could have their use. Animal activists would like nothing more than to turn the screws tighter on slob hunters.....use them. They with their finances could be a game changer for you, and all of wildlife. It "could" be the one thing hunters/non-hunters see eye to eye on. Keep your friends close....your enmies closer...


Bowbuild

[bigtex]

I was talking about this topic with a friend last night. Operation "falcon" came up where the feds did a sting on illegal raptor killings and ammased a HUGE ammound of evidence and the whole thing turned into a joke because of the court system. I thought this problem was limited to the WDFW and apparently it is not.

It's the same, if not worse, with most federal prosecutors. Each federal district is different (WA is two districts) but generally speaking, the feds aren't great at prosecuting federal natural resource crimes.

[sakoshooter]

 

If I knew that EVERY SINGLE PERSON caught and convicted actually had those minimum fines assessed to them then I would be ok with it even if I made an honest mistake and got booked for it. Call it taking one for the team or whatever but if its for the greater good then so be it. The one downside I see with the minimum fines is that it will cause many guys, and rightfully so, to think twice before turning themselves in for an honest mistake.