Poll: Legal in 4pt area or not?

[splitshot]

+
I don't hunt 4 pt areas, but have a b & c measurer look at it for the finale.  it is legal but I would not shoot it, cuz I  like money to stay in my pocket.   mike w

[Jamieb]

not legal

[WDFW Hates ME!!!]

Legal with my sons tag...

Huckleberry quality buck tag is any white tail buck, in a 4 point or better unit. So circumstances dictate what is legal and what is not.

[bearpaw]

The eye guard was only 3/4 of an inch, the buck would not be legal in a 4 pt area under the 4 pt rules. I would never have taken a chance at shooting that buck if it would have been in a 4 pt area.

[jackmaster]

looks like a 3x3 with a legal one inch eye guard

[CoryTDF]

For the broken chunk of main beam to count as a point it would have to not only be an inch, which it probably is, but would have to be longer than it is wide, which it most definitely is not.  not legal.

Are you talking about a scoreable point or a legal point? The regulations say nothing about that?? I understand this is true for a scoreable point but to me that is a legal point. I would likely pass on this buck but it looks like it is legal to me. Just barley but I think it makes it. I would need better angles and lots of time to make the decision to shoot though.

[whackmaster]

get out the silver bracelets im  in trouble 

[Mike450r]

For the broken chunk of main beam to count as a point it would have to not only be an inch, which it probably is, but would have to be longer than it is wide, which it most definitely is not.  not legal.

Are you talking about a scoreable point or a legal point? The regulations say nothing about that?? I understand this is true for a scoreable point but to me that is a legal point. I would likely pass on this buck but it looks like it is legal to me. Just barley but I think it makes it. I would need better angles and lots of time to make the decision to shoot though.

I would have to look at the definition to be 100% but I think the "longer than it is wide" has to do with the definition of a branch, not a point.   For instance in a 3 pt elk GMU the branch has to be above the ears and for the branch above the ears to be a legal branch by definition it must be longer than it is wide. 

[Rainier10]

I am dying for Dale to post what the real answer is and if it would be legal or not.  Should be interesting for sure and what the justification is behind it either way.

[CoryTDF]

For the broken chunk of main beam to count as a point it would have to not only be an inch, which it probably is, but would have to be longer than it is wide, which it most definitely is not.  not legal.

Are you talking about a scoreable point or a legal point? The regulations say nothing about that?? I understand this is true for a scoreable point but to me that is a legal point. I would likely pass on this buck but it looks like it is legal to me. Just barley but I think it makes it. I would need better angles and lots of time to make the decision to shoot though.

I would have to look at the definition to be 100% but I think the "longer than it is wide" has to do with the definition of a branch, not a point.   For instance in a 3 pt elk GMU the branch has to be above the ears and for the branch above the ears to be a legal branch by definition it must be longer than it is wide.

All I see in the regs is 1'' from it's longest side. That said from most WDFW guys I know as long as its really close they usually would let it slide unless there were other circumstances that might make them be picky. like I said I don’t think i would have shot this buck as I’m not one to gamble. Most game wardens that I have encountered are not going to hammer you on something like this unless you have given them reason to. Not to say they should let people break the clearly posted laws but there is a bit of discretion that is in the wardens hands. I would be pretty shocked if a warden was to say ticket a kid that was to have harvested this buck in a 4pt area. Anybody can look at this buck and see that it is so close that at least an attempt to be within the regulations was made. Sometimes ¼ of an inch is not worth ruining a kids day and possibly attitude about hunting. Now if it was my kid/wife/grandpa/ friend I would have strongly suggested that that person not shoot this buck. I do however believe in being accountable for your actions so if a ticket was to be issued in the eyes of the law it would be justified. Sometimes, however, the greater good can be served with just a little bit of lenancy.

[Curly]

I am dying for Dale to post what the real answer is and if it would be legal or not.  Should be interesting for sure and what the justification is behind it either way.

Check out Reply #48. 

[bearpaw]

The eye guard was only 3/4 of an inch, the buck would not be legal in a 4 pt area under the 4 pt rules. I would never have taken a chance at shooting that buck if it would have been in a 4 pt area.

[csaaphill]

The eye guard was only 3/4 of an inch, the buck would not be legal in a 4 pt area under the 4 pt rules. I would never have taken a chance at shooting that buck if it would have been in a 4 pt area.

knew that was the case

[blacktailer]

It is a good thread..   I thought the point could have easily been an inch but would have never pulled the trigger.  You can speak with a lot of official measurers and most would tell you that there can often be discrepancy as to where the origin of a point is and could go  1/4" either way.  It's not a perfect cut and dry world we live in, but I wouldn't want to be standing with the warden knowing a big ticket may be coming due to his interpretation of the origin of a point.  When in doubt, it is better safe to let it walk...

[fishnfur]

So Bearpaw, is there a definitive answer for your poll?  I begin to doubt that there is.  Without having the deer on the ground, it is all conjecture.  My take on that buck is that it was probably a 4 point with a small eyeguard that may or may not have been an inch long.  The broken section of the left antler certainly looks like it was tending towards a split that likely was two separate points.  Since those points are no longer there, they no longer count more that just a single point would.

We have lots of opinions and it is apparent that while most agree that this is not a legal 4 point, there can be no judging it without measuring the eyeguard point.   Everyone keeps talking about that phantom Fish and Game Officer out there patrolling the hunting grounds ready to write a ticket for breaking the rules, but that is a once a season event down in SW WA, and that only happens during Modern Elk.  Those officers seem more intent on checking for Discover Passes on the road than going out in the field to see what is really going on.  Makes you wonder what all that money you paid for when you bought your hunting license actually goes to.  Certainly not improving the hunting in Western WA.  I am aware that there are really no 4 point restricted areas west of the Cascades, but there are GMUs with similar type restrictions, but requiring fewer points.

I believe it is very worthwhile that people strongly consider their decisions before they dust that buck standing before them.   Sadly, I believe that many hunters are not that worried about "the rules" and interpret them to whatever level their personal values suggest at that moment.   I'd love to hear Bearpaws interpretation for this buck.

Just my two cents.