questionable Warden ruling

[dscubame]

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

Its Hancock land.

[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

Its Hancock land.

Why do you say that? Just as I said, it's not all Hancock. Look it up on the Grays Harbor county website.

Unless you're talking about specifically where this incident occurred. That I don't know. All I'm saying is it's a mixture of land ownership in that area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[j_h_nimrod]

My take on this: The hunter is responsible to know the rules/laws for the area in which he's hunting. The LE has no discretion to break the rules of a private landowner and, as a matter of fact, is a steward of the landowner's property with regards to hunters who use it. The hunter may have been able to contact the landowner to get permission to retrieve his elk after hours. Most likely, the landowner has been experiencing vandalism/dumping after hours and may have made an exception in this case were he/they contacted. Without giving them that option, there's no wiggle room as far as LE is concerned. I agree the waste of game and the trespassing charge sucks. Without trying to flame the hunter too badly, I would suggest he holds the responsibility for what happened.

I usually agree, or at least see your point of view, but in this case I feel you missed the mark. LE officers are here to enforce laws and protect the citizens, not enforce individual landowners rules and whims; there are many better ways to spend time than policing private land.

 If this is a pay area then there is essentially a contract and understanding, if rules are not posted or made readily available then how is there expectation to follow the rules?  If the DOT kept the speed limits in the office how could there be expectation to follow discrete area speed nuances?

Regardless, I think the LEO was in the wrong for a couple reasons.  First, he issued a trespassing ticket and then accompanied them (trespassing) on the game search and then kicked them off before securing the elk.  Second, he not only allowed the waste of a game animal but actually forced the necessity of waste. Third, there is latitude for a LE officer to interpret the rules (laws), especially when enforcing one law breaks another.

Maybe I am off base and the hunter is actually a criminal scumbag trying to paint LE in a bad light but reading the story I think I am at least partially justified.

[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. 

Boss, I think you may be confused. I believe what Bob is saying that the officer is simply following the direction of the landowner, as in the landowner saying "cite everyone here after XX hours" and not that the officer must be off the land as well. But to answer your question, officers enforcing fish and wildlife laws are essentially exempt from trespass laws.

well that opens a different question as to if it was not posted how could they site for tresspass? What i meant was why coudn't the LEO stay with the hunter till elk was taken carer of then see him off the land, how can the property owner deny that when they allow hunting in the first place. So the elk doesn't go to waste, which the land owner would then be causing wasteage if they didn't allow this.

[pianoman9701]

My take on this: The hunter is responsible to know the rules/laws for the area in which he's hunting. The LE has no discretion to break the rules of a private landowner and, as a matter of fact, is a steward of the landowner's property with regards to hunters who use it. The hunter may have been able to contact the landowner to get permission to retrieve his elk after hours. Most likely, the landowner has been experiencing vandalism/dumping after hours and may have made an exception in this case were he/they contacted. Without giving them that option, there's no wiggle room as far as LE is concerned. I agree the waste of game and the trespassing charge sucks. Without trying to flame the hunter too badly, I would suggest he holds the responsibility for what happened.

I usually agree, or at least see your point of view, but in this case I feel you missed the mark. LE officers are here to enforce laws and protect the citizens, not enforce individual landowners rules and whims; there are many better ways to spend time than policing private land.

 If this is a pay area then there is essentially a contract and understanding, if rules are not posted or made readily available then how is there expectation to follow the rules?  If the DOT kept the speed limits in the office how could there be expectation to follow discrete area speed nuances?

Regardless, I think the LEO was in the wrong for a couple reasons.  First, he issued a trespassing ticket and then accompanied them (trespassing) on the game search and then kicked them off before securing the elk.  Second, he not only allowed the waste of a game animal but actually forced the necessity of waste. Third, there is latitude for a LE officer to interpret the rules (laws), especially when enforcing one law breaks another.

Maybe I am off base and the hunter is actually a criminal scumbag trying to paint LE in a bad light but reading the story I think I am at least partially justified.

We'll try this one more time since my point seems lost on many. The hunter in question had a tough ethical decision to make. He made the right choice as far as I'm concerned and that choice put him at odds with trespass laws. WDFW LE are actually there to enforce the rules of private land when the landowner offers it up for public hunting. The use of this land is of benefit to the general hunting public and it's in all of our best interests for the LE to protect the landowner's assets. This isn't about someone's "whim". This is about encouraging more landowners to participate by showing them the state cares what happens to their land when they do offer the use of their land for hunters, fishers, etc..

The law says that you must know and obey the rules applying to the use of private property. Those rules don't need to be posted. 

With regards to your question about the DOT not posting speed limits, most states, including WA, have state speed limits and they need not be posted. Here's WA's speed law, RCW 46.61.400:


(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.

     (2) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subsection (1) of this section, the limits specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be maximum lawful speeds, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits.

     (a) Twenty-five miles per hour on city and town streets;

     (b) Fifty miles per hour on county roads;

     (c) Sixty miles per hour on state highways.

If you don't see speed limit signs to the contrary, you're required by law to follow these rules, rules that are not posted on the road. Ignorance is no excuse in the law. If you want the privilege of hunting on private property, you're responsible to know the rules. If you don't take the time to call the landowner, visit their website, or do whatever it takes to know them backwards and forwards, tough luck for you if you get caught.

[buckhorn2]

Okay I went to talk to my friend again so I could get the story. It was a 2nd degree trespass not a 3 don't know where I came up with that and it was 10 minutes past dark. The reason he is taking it through the court system is he does;nt want anything on his record. Also if he gets charged he can't have a concealed wepons permit that he has had for years and he would;nt be able to hunt in like 17 states.   I will let you know how it turns out but he says he is fighting it to the end.

[Curly]

Good for him.  He should fight it from the sound of it.  And if it went down like he says, I think the Warden deserves a serious talking to. 

[Nice Racks]

How bout just end the shooting hours to around noon time, so everyone can recover the elk and be out by dark. 

[bigtex]

Okay I went to talk to my friend again so I could get the story. It was a 2nd degree trespass not a 3 don't know where I came up with that and it was 10 minutes past dark. The reason he is taking it through the court system is he does;nt want anything on his record. Also if he gets charged he can't have a concealed wepons permit that he has had for years and he would;nt be able to hunt in like 17 states.   I will let you know how it turns out but he says he is fighting it to the end.

Lot's of false information here. In order for you to have your hunting/fishing license taken away you must have been convicted in WA of 3 fishing and wildlife violations within 10 years OR 2 big game violations within 10 years. If he was cited for 2nd Degree Criminal Trespass that is NOT considered a fish and wildlife violation. So either your friend is mistaken, or there is more we aren't hearing here.

[stevemiller]

    and you said he shot the bull at last light, fallowed it down lots of blood etc,then drove down 12 miles to get help,10 min. after sundown 

[pianoman9701]

There is no loss of gun rights for criminal trespass in the second degree. Your friend may not have been completely forthcoming OR he may be working on bad information. I'm not sure if he could be denied a CPL for this. It seems unlikely in this state.

RCW 9A.52.080
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.

     (2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.


[2011 c 336 § 373; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.52.080 .]

RCW 9A.52.090
Criminal trespass — Defenses.

In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:

     (1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or

     (2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

     (3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain; or

     (4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.

RCW 9.41.040
Unlawful possession of firearms — Ownership, possession by certain persons — Restoration of right to possess — Penalties.


     *** CHANGE IN 2014 *** (SEE 1840-S.SL) ***

(1)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, if the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm after having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense as defined in this chapter.

     (b) Unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.

     (2)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree, if the person does not qualify under subsection (1) of this section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm:

     (i) After having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any felony not specifically listed as prohibiting firearm possession under subsection (1) of this section, or any of the following crimes when committed by one family or household member against another, committed on or after July 1, 1993: Assault in the fourth degree, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, criminal trespass in the first degree, or violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from a residence (RCW 26.50.060, 26.50.070, 26.50.130, or 10.99.040);

[Bob33]

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?

[bigtex]

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?

Couldn't have said it any better.

[Curly]

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?

Couldn't have said it any better.

Yeah, good points.  I wouldn't have left without tagging and gutting the elk.  What I still find odd though, is that the warden let the guy go all the way back in almost to the elk and then made him leave.  What was that all about?  Or is it because we are just not getting the whole story that it seems so odd? 

[pianoman9701]

I sure wish the warden were available. I have a feeling the story would be quite different.