Recent Wolf Shooting?

[Special T]

Perhaps your correct that the shot did not kill and it ran away and i misunderstood.

And perhaps your right that you could be charged with obstruction and your life interrupted by going to jail, but your under no duty to talk to the police.

I think however that This case is different because the hunter went to the WDFW. So far its worked out OK for him. 

[KFhunter]

Perhaps your correct that the shot did not kill and it ran away and i misunderstood.

And perhaps your right that you could be charged with obstruction and your life interrupted by going to jail, but your under no duty to talk to the police.

I think however that This case is different because the hunter went to the WDFW. So far its worked out OK for him.

And it *should* work out good for the next guy that encounters a wolf from this same pack,  precedence has been set for these wolves when WDFW deemed it a justified shooting.
It would be tough to get convicted for poaching now unless it was too obvious.

Now knowing the history of these wolves I would defend myself a little quicker than I would have otherwise.

Might save a life down the road.

[idahohuntr]

I will state this differently because I think I am failing to get my point across.

If a cop comes and wants to talk to you, you do not have to respond. You certainly dont have to respond by telling him information that may or may not make you guilty of, speeding, or.....
They cop can be a good guy, his bosses can be great people. Not responding doesnt make you guilty.

It would appear from the story that the wolves ate enough of the evidence that it was impossible to ascertain the truth any way.

Ok...I understand now.  We are talking different issues.  Yes, I agree completely with you...the burden of proof is on the prosecution so there is no need to speak with LEO's...there's a link on this forum somewhere of a youtube video about why even the most innocent person in the world has nothing to benefit from talking to LEO's.  One of my good friends is a former prosecutor...he concurs   

My point was there is no evidence WDFW has ever engaged in any attempt to mistreat a hunter or outdoorsman who may have had a dangerous encounter with wildlife...including wolves.  What you are saying I think is that if a WDFW warden shows up asking questions about a dead wolf, he is not there to look out for your interests...and I would agree in the context that LEO's are not your friend if you are suspected of illegal activity (even if you are completely justified/innocent).  Let your lawyer answer his questions   

[Special T]

I would also point out that because there is NO body for the WDFW to examine  it would be impossible to  assertain his guilt or innocence. What if instead of shooting the wolf square in the chest it turned at the last second and he shot it in the side... the WDFW COULD argue that it was no danger to you because it wasnt attacking you...

And yes ID hnter you understand what i was trying to say. At least my thoughts came out clearly the second time...

[KFhunter]

When WDFW sends the same amount of officers and bio's to investigate a wolf incidence as a cougar or bear incidence, then perhaps I'll change my tune.

If this were a story about a cougar or bear stalking a hunter and him shooting it in self defense how many WDFW agents would have responded to the scene?  one? two?  zero?



Sounds like they fielded quite a gaggle of WDFW officers and agents, can't tell me they weren't thinking maybe they'd have a case.

[idahohuntr]

When WDFW sends the same amount of officers and bio's to investigate a wolf incidence as a cougar or bear incidence, then perhaps I'll change my tune.

If this were a story about a cougar or bear stalking a hunter and him shooting it in self defense how many WDFW agents would have responded to the scene?  one? two?  zero?



Sounds like they fielded quite a gaggle of WDFW officers and agents, can't tell me they weren't thinking maybe they'd have a case.

When wolves are de-listed like bears and cougars they probably would respond similarly...but given the intense focus on wolves by folks on all sides of the issue it does not strike me as unreasonable that wdfw would send a large cadre of folks to investigate. 

[Stein]

I was in fear of my life, the wolf was circling and charging and I tried everything and was forced to shoot to save my life.  Sound pretty much like what the guy said and nobody had any reason to doubt him.

Just like shooting a person, they needed to investigate the event and seemed to quickly determine it was self defense.  Case closed and everybody goes home happy except PETA.

[Bango skank]

Come on idaho hunter... "when wolves are delisted like bears and cougars?"  Bears and cougars were never "listed" in the first place, therefore they never had to be DElisted.  The feds already delisted these wolves but wdfw doesnt give a rats ass.  They will never delist them because theyre taking their cues from the idiot animal rights groups and the moron seattleites who swallow all the b.s. the anti hunting groups feed them.

[idahohuntr]

Delisted was not the correct word to use there...but the message is still accurate...when wolves are managed like bears and cougars without any sort of special protections (e.g., listed) there will be no cadre of wdfw staff going to investigate a wolf shooting. 

[Bango skank]

Delisted was not the correct word to use there...but the message is still accurate...when wolves are managed like bears and cougars without any sort of special protections (e.g., listed) there will be no cadre of wdfw staff going to investigate a wolf shooting.

Not going to happen.  And if it does it will be way too late and way too restricted.