collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: questionable Warden ruling  (Read 17243 times)

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 10634
Re: questionable Warden ruling
« Reply #75 on: April 16, 2014, 01:41:56 PM »
I sure wish the warden were available. I have a feeling the story would be quite different.
:yeah:
Unfortunately these stories just create more angst against officers/departments, yet we never hear the full "truth."

I will say this as well. Ever since the Summer of 2012 all crimes now require a mandatory court appearance and in many counties the officer no longer issues you a criminal citation but rather refers it to the county for the prosecutor to decide if they should file charges. So in this case, the prosecutor must've thought there were was enough in the case to actually prosecute the guy. One thing the change in 2012 has done was reduce the potential of some small/petty crimes being prosecuted, because if an officer refers a small/petty case then they can always deny prosecution. The days of getting a criminal citation with a fine are gone in WA for all crimes.

Offline floatinghat

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 696
Re: questionable Warden ruling
« Reply #76 on: April 16, 2014, 06:39:13 PM »

Criminal trespass in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.


It sounds like he did not know and only remained in the presence and at the request of the officer?  Me also believe there is more to this story.

Offline mpetersen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: May 2012
  • Posts: 98
  • Location: rochester, wa
Re: questionable Warden ruling
« Reply #77 on: April 16, 2014, 07:38:45 PM »
I don't know about Hancock but Weyco gave my buddy and I permission to pack his Winston bull out after hours. They did refuse vehicle access, got it out with bikes around five a.m. Probably should have waited till morning and used the truck but he was all jumpy about critters getting on it.

Offline KimWar1911

  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2011
  • Posts: 95
  • Location: centralia
Re: questionable Warden ruling
« Reply #78 on: April 19, 2014, 10:29:12 AM »

Honest mistakes can be made by anyone. Leaving an elk to waste is someone that no one wishes to see or participate in.

What bothers me about stories like this is what I perceive as an entitlement mentality. “I’m entitled to hunt on private land. I’m entitled to have the landowner’s rules plainly posted where I can easily read them, and not have to do any type of preparation. I’m entitled to have no consequences if I break the landowner’s rules.”

Yes, it sounds like the LE could have been of more assistance. Without hearing his version of the story, it’s difficult to pass judgment on him.

There are plenty of things that could have been done to prevent this. First, learn the landowner’s rules in advance. That’s your responsibility, not the landowner’s.

If you shoot an animal after sunset, and expect to need help to pack it out that’s 12 miles away, what kind of planning and ethical thought process is that? What if your friends weren’t available? What if it rains on the blood trail and you can’t find it? Why not stay until it is killed and gutted?
Well put. I would really be curious to hear the other side.

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 39203
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
Re: questionable Warden ruling
« Reply #79 on: April 19, 2014, 10:59:36 AM »
With the guts and hide still on it, it sure will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline popeshawnpaul

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 3583
  • Location: Bellevue, WA
    • http://www.facebook.com/smccully
    • Nature Photography
Re: questionable Warden ruling
« Reply #80 on: April 19, 2014, 11:45:59 AM »
Hmm, good fact scenario.  It would be a criminal trespass 2nd degree, a simple misdemeanor.  No judge would give you a harsh sentence because it's a minimal misdemeanor with good facts.  In fact, I bet most prosecutors will give him a stipulated agreement to dismiss or a deferred sentence.  I would contact Weyerhauser or the landowner and get them to compromise and dismiss the case.  That being said, I might try and assert a defense and take it to trial should the prosecutor make an unfair offer.  I would argue a necessity defense.  You could state you had no legal alternative to not committing the criminal law violation of leaving game to spoil.  You can't really fault the warden here as he has directive or understanding from the landowner that they aren't allowed to be there at night.  He is just enforcing what I would think is their right to kick people out of their land.  Maybe he felt bad being in there like they were and knew it would take more time to get the elk out, risking them all with getting caught against the landowner's wishes.

Sounds like a fun case.  I would love this one.

Offline Bullkllr

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2007
  • Posts: 4923
  • Location: Graham
Re: questionable Warden ruling
« Reply #81 on: April 19, 2014, 11:48:52 AM »
Am I missing something here?  He shot a elk at sunset plus a bit, tracked it for a short time, hiked out, got his buddies, came back, and then was told not to come in etc.  By my math that means that the elk was most likely killed between 4 and 7 pm.  Even if it laid overnight and he had to go back the next morning, how did it spoil?  It could be 60 degrees out and a elk shouldn't spoil overnight. 

Seems to me that elk didn't lay more than 12 to 15 hours at the worst.  Even if  he didn't gut it after they found it with the warden, it shouldn't have spoiled.  When did you get back to pack it out?

12-15 hours at 60 degrees? I'd guess it could be a total loss.  Hanging in a bag, no... heating up under the hide on the ground, yeah...
A Man's Gotta Eat

Offline buglebrush

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Posts: 1615
Re: questionable Warden ruling
« Reply #82 on: April 19, 2014, 09:47:34 PM »
How bout just end the shooting hours to around noon time, so everyone can recover the elk and be out by dark.  :chuckle:

Sadly this is the only viable option on a game animal like elk.  Even then you may not have the last load out until after dark.  Ridiculous to say the least.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Accura MR-X 45 load development by kyles_88
[Today at 08:25:49 PM]


AUCTION: SE Idaho DIY Deer or Deer/Elk Hunt by WoolyRunner
[Today at 07:36:44 PM]


Son drawn - Silver Dollar Youth Any Elk - Help? by VickGar
[Today at 04:54:03 PM]


Nevada bull hunt 2025 by Karl Blanchard
[Today at 03:20:09 PM]


I'm Going To Need Karl To Come up With That 290 Muley Sunscreen Bug Spray Combo by highside74
[Today at 01:27:51 PM]


Toutle Quality Bull - Rifle by lonedave
[Today at 12:58:20 PM]


49 Degrees North Early Bull Moose by washingtonmuley
[Today at 12:00:55 PM]


MA 6 EAST fishing report? by washingtonmuley
[Today at 11:56:01 AM]


Kings by Gentrys
[Today at 11:05:40 AM]


2025 Crab! by ghosthunter
[Today at 09:43:49 AM]


Survey in ? by hdshot
[Today at 09:20:27 AM]


Bear behavior by brew
[Today at 08:40:20 AM]


Bearpaw Outfitters Annual July 4th Hunt Sale by bearpaw
[Today at 07:57:12 AM]


A lonely Job... by Loup Loup
[Today at 07:47:41 AM]


2025 Montana alternate list by bear
[Today at 06:06:48 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal