Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: bigtex on April 07, 2014, 08:25:46 PMQuote from: bowbuild on April 07, 2014, 06:33:55 PMQuote from: bigtex on April 07, 2014, 04:18:13 PMQuote from: jackmaster on April 07, 2014, 12:08:23 PM 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?
Quote from: bowbuild on April 07, 2014, 06:33:55 PMQuote from: bigtex on April 07, 2014, 04:18:13 PMQuote from: jackmaster on April 07, 2014, 12:08:23 PM 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.
Quote from: bigtex on April 07, 2014, 04:18:13 PMQuote from: jackmaster on April 07, 2014, 12:08:23 PM 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??
Quote from: jackmaster on April 07, 2014, 12:08:23 PM 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.
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
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
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?
and how much blame laid on the prosecutor, and how much on the judge?
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.
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.