questionable Warden ruling

[buckhorn2]

This past season a friend spotted and shot a bull toward last light it went down but made it to the bottom of a canyon he folled it down and there was a lot of blood and he could hear it thrashing. He backed out as he was alone and went to town about 12 miles away and got his son and a friend and packboards and headed back in to get his elk. The place is on timber property but the sign on the gate says open for hunting season and the gate is always open during season. Anyway on the way in a game warden stopped him and says you can't be in here after dark and my friend says I have an elk down and we are going to get it. The warden says I am giving you a trespass 3 ticket then says I will follow you. They get to the spot go down the hill see all the blood and the warden says lets go you can come back in the morning. My friend says it will spoil if we don't at least clean it now but the warden insists he leave. Anyway the elk spoiled and it was a nice 4 point and my friend got a ticket for trespass. He does;nt want any violations on his record and has spent money on a lawyer and went to court like 3 times and it's still ongoing. We read all the signs on the logging road gate and nowhere did it say you had to be out after dark it's a main logging road. Anyway I think it was wrong to make a judgement to let a nice elk spoil when he could have at least let them clean it and then retrieve it in the morning. And the ticket also did;nt seem right will no signs stating you could;nt be in the woods after dark.

[Boss .300 winmag]

    Oh boy I bet this gets good, popcorn anyone. 

[jason stevens]

Tough one but sounds like the warden was having a bad day. Could of been attitude who knows

[Tbar]

I would guess the wardens report reads a little different. Not taking sides just saying there are usually two sides to the story.

[bobcat]

That's a bunch of BS. The warden should have assisted him in getting the elk out. I don't mean by packing it, but by staying with him until he was out. All I can think of is the warden must be an anti. How else do you explain it? Was it Weyerhaeuser land where you're only supposed to be in there 1 1/2 hours after sunset? Even if that's the case, the warden was there and should have let him get the elk, in my opinion.

It does say this on the current rules for the Raymond-Aberdeen Weyerhaeuser tree farm (if that's where this took place)

Access is restricted to the following times: one and one-half hours before sunrise through one and one-half hours after sunset.

If this happened to me I probably would never hunt in this state again. I'm already almost to the point of doing no more hunting in this state, and spending my money in other states every year.

[dontgetcrabs]

Just curious why you're posting this now?

[billythekidrock]

I don't agree with a ticket in this instance and definitely don't agree with the wastage, but most timber companies have some sort of 30-60 min before/after sunrise/sunset type of rule.

Very unfortunate for sure.

[Bob33]

If it is private land, the warden must obey the landowner's rules. It is possible the landowner insisted on enforcing the access hours restriction. Otherwise, he should have been more helpful.

[6haase6]

What happened with the spoiled elk? Did he have to burn his tag on it? Personal I would be more than upset. Not only did an elk "I" killed get spoiled because of someone else's choice but it would make it that much worse to make "me" tag the animal he rendered useless to me. Never like seeing an animal spoil espicially when it could have been prevented like that.

[dreamunelk]

See page 96 of regulations.  General guidelines.   I have a feeling that the landowner has the rules posted online during hunting season also.   Sounds like he may have got lucky.  He did not verify the elk was dead so did not immediately tag.  Could have been another ticket.  Not sure maybe someone in L.E. can clarify.

No matter the outcome after the the case is resolved he may want to write a very apologetic letter to the landowner.  Possible that after court he could get a persona non grata letter.  Sometimes it is followed by a letter from other major landowners.  Effectively booting you off most timberland.  If caught again it is a more serious charge. 

I hear they have been getting serious about violations on land that does not charge for access to get the message out about respecting landowner rules.

[TriggerMike]

I hear they have been getting serious about violations on land that does not charge for access to get the message out about respecting landowner rules.

Good.

[KFhunter]

That's a bunch of BS. The warden should have assisted him in getting the elk out. I don't mean by packing it, but by staying with him until he was out. All I can think of is the warden must an anti. How else do you explain it? Was it Weyerhaeuser land where you're only supposed to be in there 1 1/2 hours after sunset? Even if that's the case, the warden was there and should have let him get the elk, in my opinion.

It does say this on the current rules for the Raymond-Aberdeen Weyerhaeuser tree farm (if that's where this took place)

Access is restricted to the following times: one and one-half hours before sunrise through one and one-half hours after sunset.

If this happened to me I probably would never hunt in this state again. I'm already almost to the point of doing no more hunting in this state, and spending my money in other states every year.

The "warden" should have an exemption for escorting hunters in after hours instead of forcing the game to spoil. 

Might not be such an exemption in place, but this is a good case to bring to the landowner to seek something like that.

[Mr Mykiss]

Just curious why you're posting this now?

[j_h_nimrod]

I agree with respecting landowner rules (though I really feel timber companys don't really qualify as landowners, it is rediculous how  much land they control for what they invested, they were essentially given the land and in many cases were subsidized to purchase land at pennies to the acre ).

In this case could you charge  the warden with wanton waste? 

There should be some stipulations and recourse for instances like this.  Really the warden should be fired  or at least seriously (and officially) reprimanded for being directly responsible for the waste of a game animal he was obligated to protect.

[KFhunter]

Just curious why you're posting this now?

OP said it was ongoing in the court system, so I suspect it's like a big painful boil on a left butt cheek constantly reminding you to stand up.