Legal question

[Curly]

Officers in support of citing hunters for waste of coyotes leads me to sadly conclude that ucwarden is right.

 

It sounds to me that WDFW is too scared to fight for what is right.  They are scared of PETA and HSUS and the like and wouldn't be interested in fighting for sportsmen because it is difficult.  (Now, maybe they wouldn't even have to have a fight in changing the law if they didn't enforce it like that.  99.9% of hunters believe the law is for "game" animals like the regs say, so they shouldn't even be enforcing the letter of the law as written in the RCW.)

Take the wolf plan for instance; wdfw could have come out with a more realistic plan (and they could de-list coyotes now in the eastern third of the state) but it is easier to appease the wolf huggers than to fight for the sportsmen that they should be aligned with.

And take the cougar seasons and quotas.  Those are probably set because they are afraid of fighting with the anti-hunting crowd.

They should not be enforcing laws like that wastage law.  I still can't believe it was suggested to throw a yote in the garbage......to me, that is more of a waste then leaving it in the field. 

The attitude I'm hearing is that it is ok for an officer to write someone up for anything that might fit and then let the court deal with it.  I've heard the saying that "and the charge was upheld in court", as if that justified the citation.  Well, I imagine most of the time a judge will side with the officer, and if that is how the law reads anyway.......how could the judge really side any other way?  Plus, if I shoot a coyote in Grant County and get a citation because I left it lay there, then I don't want to have to take a trip back over there for a court case that I likely would lose anyway.

I guess i just wish we had officials in this state that did like Governor Otter in ID when he told his guys not to enforce laws against people shooting wolves.  That is more extreme than an enforcement chief telling his guys not to enforce wastage laws on the likes of nutria, coyotes, moles, or whatever.  Probably the only people that believe the wastage law is fine as written are animal rights fanatics. 

[Curly]

BTW - it was never my intent for this thread to turn into another WDFW bashing thread............but it is what it is I guess.   

[KimWar1911]

Didn't read all the posts so maybe this was covered. It's trespass no question in my mind. An extension of you would have crossed onto private land without permission. Same as you sticking your hand inside the threshold of a doorway without permission. Didn't touch anything but you entered the property unlawfully. My 2cents

[Curly]

Saying it 8 times doesn't make your opinion any more valid than just once.
 

 

[h20hunter]

I think when the forum lags hitting the reply a few times results in multiple postings.

[Curly]

It would be an interesting court case.  I still don't believe it would be trespassing, but you never know what an officer or judge's opinion may be.  What if the bullet flies over the private property?  That would be no different than an airplane flying over. 

I still believe littering would fit better than trespassing for this type of case. 

[Brad Harshman]

If I remember correctly (10 years ago In a criminal justice college course) this has been covered in case law.  And they found the person who shot onto private property guilty of tresspass. 
Don't do it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[Stein]

Looks like it was revised this year....
 Removing all of the revisions gives you:

     (c) Wasting wildlife: Taking or possessing wildlife classified as game birds and having a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and recklessly allowing the game birds to be wasted.

And, from 160:

(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:

     (a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and

     (b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted.

Doesn't seem to cover coyotes, mice or slugs.

[Curly]

Looks like it was revised this year....
 Removing all of the revisions gives you:

     (c) Wasting wildlife: Taking or possessing wildlife classified as game birds and having a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and recklessly allowing the game birds to be wasted.

And, from 160:

(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:

     (a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and

     (b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted.

Doesn't seem to cover coyotes, mice or slugs.

That is good news that they revised it.  That isn't how it read back when this thread was being hashed out, was it?

(Now I won't have to throw the yotes in the garbage.  My garbage man will be much happier now). 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160

[Curly]

Here is how that section read just over a month ago:

RCW 77.15.160(2)(c)
The following acts are infractions and must be cited and punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW:
(2) Hunting infractions:
(c) Wasting wildlife: Killing, taking, or possessing wildlife that is not classified as big game and has a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and allowing the wildlife to be wasted.

[Bob33]

This is from the current RCW 77.15.160

Infractions (as amended by 2014 c 202).  (2) Hunting infractions:

     (c) Wasting wildlife: Killing, taking, or possessing wildlife that is not classified as big game and has a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and allowing the wildlife to be wasted.

[Curly]

This is so confusing.

What is the current law?  Here is the law as amended by 204 c 48:

  (c) Wasting wildlife: ((Killing,)) Taking((,)) or possessing wildlife ((that is not)) classified as ((big)) game birds and ((has)) having a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and recklessly allowing the ((wildlife)) game birds to be wasted.

[Bob33]

This is so confusing.

What is the current law?  Here is the law as amended by 204 c 48:

  (c) Wasting wildlife: ((Killing,)) Taking((,)) or possessing wildlife ((that is not)) classified as ((big)) game birds and ((has)) having a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and recklessly allowing the ((wildlife)) game birds to be wasted.

It was amended twice in 2014. Scroll down to see the "Infractions (as amended by 2014 c 202.)"

"Reviser's note: RCW 77.15.160 was amended twice during the 2014 legislative session, each without reference to the other. For rule of construction concerning sections amended more than once during the same legislative session, see RCW 1.12.025."

[pd]

This is so confusing.

What is the current law?  Here is the law as amended by 204 c 48:

  (c) Wasting wildlife: ((Killing,)) Taking((,)) or possessing wildlife ((that is not)) classified as ((big)) game birds and ((has)) having a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and recklessly allowing the ((wildlife)) game birds to be wasted.

It was amended twice in 2014. Scroll down to see the "Infractions (as amended by 2014 c 202.)"

"Reviser's note: RCW 77.15.160 was amended twice during the 2014 legislative session, each without reference to the other. For rule of construction concerning sections amended more than once during the same legislative session, see RCW 1.12.025."

Now I am confused. So exactly what is the law?

[KimWar1911]

Not sure why my post came up 8 times.