HB 1627 Unlawful Removal of Wildlife Parts from Private Property

[Jingles]

So because when you left the house this morning and you thought you shut the door but in fact it didn't completely shut and Joe *censored* the rag man came by saw the door open and walked in decided that he liked your 54 inch flat screen TV so he took it It is alright because the door wasn't completely shut?  So how is this any different than if someone was walking across your property  liked the sheds they found and took them. It is still stealing from PRIVATE PROPERTY where you were not authorized to be.

If you see nothing wrong with this post your address as I need some spending cash and  hey as long as you think it is ok to steal might as well hit your place first as you won't complain until it happens to you then of course it is wrong.  I believe that is called hypocrisy......

And if you think it is bluster keep thinking that I have been there done that before and am not afraid to do it again.

[pianoman9701]

So because when you left the house this morning and you thought you shut the door but in fact it didn't completely shut and Joe *censored* the rag man came by saw the door open and walked in decided that he liked your 54 inch flat screen TV so he took it It is alright because the door wasn't completely shut?  So how is this any different than if someone was walking across your property  liked the sheds they found and took them. It is still stealing from PRIVATE PROPERTY where you were not authorized to be.

If you see nothing wrong with this post your address as I need some spending cash and  hey as long as you think it is ok to steal might as well hit your place first as you won't complain until it happens to you then of course it is wrong.  I believe that is called hypocrisy......

I assume you're addressing Jacque or fireweed, right?

[Jingles]

So because when you left the house this morning and you thought you shut the door but in fact it didn't completely shut and Joe *censored* the rag man came by saw the door open and walked in decided that he liked your 54 inch flat screen TV so he took it It is alright because the door wasn't completely shut?  So how is this any different than if someone was walking across your property  liked the sheds they found and took them. It is still stealing from PRIVATE PROPERTY where you were not authorized to be.

If you see nothing wrong with this post your address as I need some spending cash and  hey as long as you think it is ok to steal might as well hit your place first as you won't complain until it happens to you then of course it is wrong.  I believe that is called hypocrisy......

I am addressing anyone that thinks it is ok to steal from anyone else just because they might or might not have more than the thief has be it cash, property, or whatever.  The ones that say it is ok to pick up sheds from private property that they were trespassing on are the same ones that probably steal trail cameras on public property......
I assume you're addressing Jacque or fireweed, right?

[pianoman9701]

We're in complete agreement, then. Just unsure why you quoted me. It's quite clear from all my posts that I think stealing from a private landowner is wrong and should carry an additional punishment. 

[Jacque]

Not sure how my post was misread, to be perfectly clear "I do not condone breaking the law, Period"  Trespassing is trespassing, on a thousand acres or a postage stamp and theft is theft, of a jumbo TV or a flipin rock.  What I was saying is you don't need 6 laws to cover theft.  How about enforcing the ones already on the books.  I don't collect sheds and haven't collected mushrooms since high school.

[fireweed]

I guess one question I have is:  who currently (under state law) owns Shed antlers? 
If the landowner that they fall on owns them, then taking sheds is already "stealing" and should already be illegal, right?  Trespassing and taking sheds is no different that trespassing and taking cedar, or fence posts, or anything.  It's already two crimes.

This law seems to codify that the "state" owns the sheds just like they own the wildlife.  If they can link shed hunting to hunting licenses through the law, next you will need a hunting license to pick up shed antlers.  Seems like a logical step.  then the tweeker that gets caught trespassing and taking shed antlers gets hit with three offenses: trespassing, stealing, and harvesting sheds without a hunting license.  I guess that would be ok.

[Jacque]

 Yep a 

[bigtex]

I guess one question I have is:  who currently (under state law) owns Shed antlers? 
If the landowner that they fall on owns them, then taking sheds is already "stealing" and should already be illegal, right?  Trespassing and taking sheds is no different that trespassing and taking cedar, or fence posts, or anything.  It's already two crimes.

This law seems to codify that the "state" owns the sheds just like they own the wildlife.  If they can link shed hunting to hunting licenses through the law, next you will need a hunting license to pick up shed antlers.  Seems like a logical step.  then the tweeker that gets caught trespassing and taking shed antlers gets hit with three offenses: trespassing, stealing, and harvesting sheds without a hunting license.  I guess that would be ok.

Shed's are considered "wildlife" and as a result are the property of the state.

RCW 77.08.010
The term "wildlife" includes all stages of development and the bodily parts of wildlife members.

[idahohuntr]

Correct.  The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession.  State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.

[mfswallace]

I guess one question I have is:  who currently (under state law) owns Shed antlers? 
If the landowner that they fall on owns them, then taking sheds is already "stealing" and should already be illegal, right?  Trespassing and taking sheds is no different that trespassing and taking cedar, or fence posts, or anything.  It's already two crimes.

This law seems to codify that the "state" owns the sheds just like they own the wildlife.  If they can link shed hunting to hunting licenses through the law, next you will need a hunting license to pick up shed antlers.  Seems like a logical step.  then the tweeker that gets caught trespassing and taking shed antlers gets hit with three offenses: trespassing, stealing, and harvesting sheds without a hunting license.  I guess that would be ok.

Shed's are considered "wildlife" and as a result are the property of the state.

RCW 77.08.010
The term "wildlife" includes all stages of development and the bodily parts of wildlife members.

If the gov't is for the people and run by the people isn't it our wildlife??

[fireweed]

Correct.  The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession.  State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.

Its clearer now.  Sheds on private land are not owned by the landowner, but owned by the state,  and someone who trespasses and picks up shed antlers on private land is not "taking my stuff the  same as taking a TV", but they are stealing from the state, the same as poaching.   Thus the "need" for a new law that punishes via a hunting license (that the criminal may or may not have).  If there is money to be made off state wildlife somewhere, it seems it is pretty logical to soon require a hunting license to pick up shed antlers, and impose a limit etc.,  Heck, the state has a dead sand dollar limit of 10.  There is a bill for a "rock collecting license" why not a shed collecting license? 

[idahohuntr]

Correct.  The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession.  State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.

So sheds on private land are not owned by the landowner, but owned by the state, thus the "need" for a new law?

I think the "need" for this new law is that trespassing to pick up sheds is much more rampant than trespassing and hunting because the penalty is low in the sense that its not a F&W violation that results in license loss...if I understand correctly.  Most shed hunters are also regular hunters and so it may keep the less honest more honest if license revocations are a real possibility.

I read the text of the bill and here is an interesting thing for landowners to consider...illegally collected wildlife parts (e.g., those collected by trespassers) are forfeited to the state.  So if I catch a trespassing shed hunter with some nice sheds from my place I'm thinking I would tell the guy to hand 'em over and not to come back and I won't call the police "this time" 

[bigtex]

Correct.  The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession.  State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.

Heck, the state has a dead sand dollar limit of 10.

No it doesn't. About 5 years ago the state prohibited the possession of unclassified marine invertebrates such as sand dollars.

[Man Tracker]

I think an argument can be made that once shed, antlers are no longer "bodily parts".   I can't see a judge or jury deciding sheds are "property of the state".  Interesting discussion...

[bigtex]

The bill is about to go up for a full Senate vote. Once that happens, Inslee will sign and it will become law.