questionable Warden ruling

[6x6in6]

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.

What Bob said.
Unfortunately, the warden does not have the latitude to disregard the landowners closure hours.  Apparently this landowner's closure hours do not provide for the circumstances of retrieval and therefore the risk of wastage is real.
Sucks but it is what it is. 

[j_h_nimrod]

Just curious, where was this actually at?  There are a lot of assumptions as to what the landowner rules are without actually knowing. 

[Hawgdawg]

Just curious why you're posting this now?

cause fishing season doesn't start for a couple weeks......................

[stevemiller]

The only thing I have to say on this is,The hunter should have Tagged and dressed The animal imediately upon kill,Then it wouldnt have gone to waste.Why did he go to town for help before doing this?He didnt have the help to kill it.Waste, not tagging upon kill,Trespassing if thats the rules,In my op.Charge for all 3  When a WDFW official is on the job and helps someone it is on their discretion to do so,Instead they should get finished with a person as quickly as can be done and move on to the next problem.Just like a cop on the hiway should not stay for an hour or more with someone stranded on the hiway for the tow truck. 

[huntnphool]

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

+1

[bobcat]

I agree the hunter should have known the rules and done whatever was needed to prevent that bull from going to waste, while still being off the private land on time.

But, he didn't, and the warden should still have allowed him to get the elk taken care of. So write him a trespassing citation and let him explain it to the judge. Fine.

He went all the way back in there with him, he had the time to do that. Why not let the hunter at least gut/skin the elk enough so that the meat would still be good in the morning?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jackmaster]

The only thing I have to say on this is,The hunter should have Tagged and dressed The animal imediately upon kill,Then it wouldnt have gone to waste.Why did he go to town for help before doing this?He didnt have the help to kill it.Waste, not tagging upon kill,Trespassing if thats the rules,In my op.Charge for all 3  When a WDFW official is on the job and helps someone it is on their discretion to do so,Instead they should get finished with a person as quickly as can be done and move on to the next problem.Just like a cop on the hiway should not stay for an hour or more with someone stranded on the hiway for the tow truck. 

he said he could hear it thrashing around so he backed out to go get help what do you do when you shoot an animal and it doesnt hit the deck? you wait and let time work, he went to town and came back with help to go take care of his bull!! sounds pretty simple, he didnt tag it yet because he didnt want to push the bull any further, sounds like the game warden was on a power trip, most timber companies that have a rule where you have to be out at a certain time are the pay to enter timber companies!!! of course we only have one side of the story, but if its true, then that gamie has some serious little man issues, no reason for an elk to spoil, damn sure was ZERO reason for him not to let the hunters dress and quarter the elk and let them hang it or whatever, just to protect against waistage

[buckhorn2]

My friend came down to the Columbia to fish spring salmon with me and while sitting on anchor he talked about his hunting experience and is still going to court over it. I started thinking about it and decided to write about what happened. He could have tried to finish the elk but he was worried he would jump it and maybe lose it so he thought to get help. It was on the johns river road up the elk river main line near Westport. I hunted in there with the wife during muzzle season with my wife who had the multi season tag and we came out after dark on our way out several times and I read the big sign and it said open for hunting season and nowhere did it say you had to be out after dark.  A lot of hunters go in before daylight to get to there favotite spots and it's dark then. Myself I just thought it was a waste.

[dscubame]

Hancock property it is.

[bobcat]

Well, that's not all Hancock up there. A lot of it is owned by the county, and much of it is owned by smaller timber companies, and some is state land as well. Now knowing the location, I'd say the game warden was even more in the wrong for charging the hunter with a crime along with allowing an elk to go to waste.

I do agree with the other post that said there may be more to the story. But if it's as written, I don't see how the hunter did anything wrong. I just don't think there's any excuse for a game warden allowing an elk to go to waste. His job should be to try to prevent that from happening. Not the other way around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FC]

I just don't think there's any excuse for a game warden allowing an elk go to waste.

I don't see any mitigating circumstances on that one. If he had to cite the guy for trespassing than fine (although petty) but letting the elk go to waste is just sad.

[Boss .300 winmag]

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.

How can land owners kick off LEOs when they are engaged in a law enforcement situation? They have have control of the scene, let the hunter finish the job and then see that he leaves. It would be like any land owner trying to kick a sheriff off our private property if he was engaged in a investigation, not going to happen even if he doesnt have a search warrent, they wait untill they get one.

BigTex chime in please. 

[bobcat]

I just don't think there's any excuse for a game warden allowing an elk go to waste.

I don't see any mitigating circumstances on that one. If he had to cite the guy for trespassing than fine (although petty) but letting the elk go to waste is just sad.

Right, plus I don't believe a trespass charge is a minor infraction like it used to be. Don't they have a new, more serious charge, for trespassing while hunting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boss .300 winmag]

I just don't think there's any excuse for a game warden allowing an elk go to waste.

I don't see any mitigating circumstances on that one. If he had to cite the guy for trespassing than fine (although petty) but letting the elk go to waste is just sad.

Right, plus I don't believe a trespass charge is a minor infraction like it used to be. Don't they have a new, more serious charge, for trespassing while hunting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He went back after dark to retrieve the elk, hunting was done then. So ho wcan he be charged with tresspasing while hunting? 

[Elkpiss]

This just makes me boil... Common sence, discression...... Come on folks... the game warden was out of his mind if this is the decision he made... There is nothing else to be said... He was a anti-hunter who had a power trip... I feel bad for the hunter and i hope he takes this to trial and all the way...  You see this all the time now with the WDFG...  You have every right to retrieve your wounded animal, especially if the warden was there, he could have said "absolutely, please get your elk so its not wasted".. "discression/common sence".....  How many game wardens are pro-hunting in the state is my question???  Cause they sure seem like they partner up with the anti-hunting groups alot lately...