Whitman County Man Admits Wolf Wasn't Threatening Life or Property When he Shot

[bigtex]

Shot wolf not threatening humans or livestock

The Associated Press February 5, 2015

PULLMAN, Wash — A Whitman County man who shot a gray wolf last fall told investigators the animal did not pose an imminent threat to humans or livestock.

That's according to a report released by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife after a public records request by the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.

Officers investigating the October shooting say Jonathan M. Rasmussen and his wife did not indicate the wolf posed a threat at the time of the shooting south of Pullman.

Investigators say they found evidence of unlawful taking of wildlife, and recommended a misdemeanor charge be filed. No charges have been filed yet by the Whitman County Prosecutor's Office.

Under Washington law, it is illegal to shoot a wolf unless it is attacking livestock or people.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2015/02/05/4117840/shot-wolf-not-threatening-humans.html#storylink=cpy

[GrainfedMuley]

Oh darn.....one less wolf in Washington         

[danderson]

There isn't a jury around that would convict him for protecting his family from harm, at least in eastern Wash, another waste of tax payers money.

[pianoman9701]

There isn't a jury around that would convict him for protecting his family from harm, at least in eastern Wash, another waste of tax payers money.

You forget in which county he lives. Whitman is full of wolf-hugging liberals. He should've kept his mouth shut.

[danderson]

Just because you read something in the news paper doesn't make  it true, rumors tend to have a life of there own.

[Skillet]

Weird wording in that article. It's a big leap to take from "did not indicate the wolf posed a threat at the time" to "told investigators the animal did not pose an imminent threat."

[pianoman9701]

Just because you read something in the news paper doesn't make  it true, rumors tend to have a life of there own.

I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be convicted. People under investigation for anything tend to provide the most evidence against themselves, whether that be from talking to investigators without the presence of council, or to the media because they get the "15 seconds of fame diarrhea of the mouth" syndrome.

[timberfaller]

Sorry but, see wolf, see threat!  its that simple!!!

There IS a reason they were thinned out years ago!

[pianoman9701]

Sorry but, see wolf, see threat!  its that simple!!!

There IS a reason they were thinned out years ago!

The point is that the guy made a statement saying the wolf he shot presented no imminent threat. He clearly did himself no favors by saying that, especially considering that he's under investigation for shooting an endangered species in the State of WA. Whether or not he actually performed a service by his act isn't pertinent. If and when this goes to trial, his comments will not help his defense.

[jasnt]

Sorry but, see wolf, see threat!  its that simple!!!

There IS a reason they were thinned out years ago!

The point is that the guy made a statement saying the wolf he shot presented no imminent threat. He clearly did himself no favors by saying that, especially considering that he's under investigation for shooting an endangered species in the State of WA. Whether or not he actually performed a service by his act isn't pertinent. If and when this goes to trial, his comments will not help his defense.

yup. Rule #1 (according to my lawyer) never ever talk to Leo without counsel!

[BOWHUNTER45]

Why would he throw himself under the bus  That's just crazy !!!!! I am sure they put the scare tactics to him .

[bobcat]

I don't see how his statement changes anything. From the original story it was apparent that the wolf wasn't a threat to anyone or anything.

From the the Spokane newspaper, the Spokesman Review, on October 13, 2014:

“They determined that the wolf had been shot by a farmer who had pursued the animal for several miles in his vehicle after seeing it near his farm,” said Nate Pamplin, the agency’s wildlife program director.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/oct/13/wolf-shot-whitman-county-charges-pending/


How could it possibly be a threat if he had to follow it for several miles in his vehicle?

[Jingles]

If and that is a VERY BIG IF the guy did in fact say that the wolf did not present any danger to himself his family or live stock he is dumber than a box of rocks especially if he originally said it did and even more so for saying anything in the first place.
However it would not surprise me that one of the investigating authorities has changed his words or kept hounding him and or his family to get them to say something they wanted to hear.

Lets face it,,,, it is damned hard to get ballistics matches off buckshot from a smooth bore ( not saying he used a shotgun) and we all know that wolf lovers wouldn't let it go until they had someone to nail up as an example

[Bean Counter]

Sorry but, see wolf, see threat!  its that simple!!!

There IS a reason they were thinned out years ago!

The point is that the guy made a statement saying the wolf he shot presented no imminent threat. He clearly did himself no favors by saying that, especially considering that he's under investigation for shooting an endangered species in the State of WA. Whether or not he actually performed a service by his act isn't pertinent. If and when this goes to trial, his comments will not help his defense.

yup. Rule #1 (according to my lawyer) never ever talk to Leo without counsel!

Laywer up and shut up!

[pianoman9701]

If and that is a VERY BIG IF the guy did in fact say that the wolf did not present any danger to himself his family or live stock he is dumber than a box of rocks especially if he originally said it did and even more so for saying anything in the first place.
However it would not surprise me that one of the investigating authorities has changed his words or kept hounding him and or his family to get them to say something they wanted to hear.

Lets face it,,,, it is damned hard to get ballistics matches off buckshot from a smooth bore ( not saying he used a shotgun) and we all know that wolf lovers wouldn't let it go until they had someone to nail up as an example

LE has no power to move your lips and make words come out of your mouth. Only you can do that. In a trial, they'll use video and audio tapes of the man's interviews as evidence against him, whether under LE questioning or his statements to the media.  And as far as ballistics are concerned, I believe he's admitted to shooting the wolf, so ballistics are unnecessary.

[Jingles]

Again I repeat that the individual is about a smart as a post for saying anything in the first place. Let the carcass lay and let nature take it's course besides those big coyotes are just to damned big to drag around taking picture of in different places like the little ones are

[bobcat]

I think there were witnesses since it happened on opening day of deer season, so that's most likely why he reported it.

[T-Dozzer]

There isn't a jury around that would convict him for protecting his family from harm, at least in eastern Wash, another waste of tax payers money.

You forget in which county he lives. Whitman is full of wolf-hugging liberals. He should've kept his mouth shut.

Seriously? Have you ever been to Whitman county? Maybe a few Birkenstock wearing professors at WSU, but everyone I know is pretty conservative. Grew up there. Our farm is just down the road.

[bigtex]

There isn't a jury around that would convict him for protecting his family from harm, at least in eastern Wash, another waste of tax payers money.

You forget in which county he lives. Whitman is full of wolf-hugging liberals. He should've kept his mouth shut.

Seriously? Have you ever been to Whitman county? Maybe a few Birkenstock wearing professors at WSU, but everyone I know is pretty conservative. Grew up there. Our farm is just down the road.

Actually if you look at recent elections Whitman County is becoming one of the more democratic leaning counties in eastern WA.

[T-Dozzer]

Yeah, I'm always surprised to see that on the map. Maybe Pullman is throwing it off or I just stick to like minded hillbillies.

[jrebel]

Dozzer

Where about down the road is your farm.....I worked on a farm down there when I was going to school.  Wondering if we ever crossed paths.  I graduated 01. 

jrebel

[T-Dozzer]

Dozzer

Where about down the road is your farm.....I worked on a farm down there when I was going to school.  Wondering if we ever crossed paths.  I graduated 01. 

jrebel

Around prune orchard rd. Graduated HS Colfax 98.
I'm over on west side now, folks and place still there.

[T-Dozzer]

Yeah, I'm always surprised to see that on the map. Maybe Pullman is throwing it off or I just stick to like minded hillbillies.

Did you know the Robertsons then?

This is getting a little off topic, but yes...there is ( or was) a Robertsons place not far away. They didn't have any kids my age so I didn't really know them.  There are more than one Robertsons family in the area.

[wolfbait]

"Officers investigating the October shooting say Jonathan M. Rasmussen and his wife did not indicate the wolf posed a threat at the time of the shooting south of Pullman."

Sounds like great propaganda for the CNW, DoW, WDFW, and the rest of their ilk.

I wonder if these people had been reporting wolf/wolves to WDFW who then ignored the problem until the guy got fed up, such as has happened in the Okanogan for several years now.

[James Fell]

Here is a more complete article from Moscow Pullman Daily News. Something interesting about this incident is the wolf was across the road from the suspects horse boarding facility. Does someone in business to care for other people's animals have more of a responsibility? Typically at this facility there are $5,000 -$50,000 horses. Not really the same situation as normal livestock. If those horses were injured and attacked who would be getting sued? How would it affect their future potential to stay in business? Will the state be paying for the loss of these high value animals? This does not seem like the normal wolf vs livestock incidents we hear. It is funny how the writers choose to cherry pick the perfect line for their articles rather than saying wolf shooting suspect feared future attack on children and horses. I guess we will see what happens.

Wolf was not an 'imminent threat'

A wolf shot west of Pullman lies on a tarp on Oct. 12, 2014, at a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife facility in Clarkston after being tagged and labeled for evidence.

Posted: Thursday, February 5, 2015 12:00 am | Updated: 7:13 am, Thu Feb 5, 2015.

A Whitman County man who shot a gray wolf last fall indicated the animal did not pose an "imminent threat" to humans or livestock, according to a report released by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife after a public records request.

The officers investigating the October shooting said Jonathan M. Rasmussen and his wife cooperated willingly, but did not indicate the wolf posed a threat at the time of the shooting south of Pullman.

"Rasmussen stated that he thought if the wolf was allowed to live it would kill animals in the future," according to the report.

Attempts to reach Rasmussen on Wednesday were not successful.

The agency's investigators said they found evidence of unlawful taking of fish and wildlife, and recommended a misdemeanor charge. The Whitman County Prosecutor's Office declined to respond to questions but has not charged Rasmussen.

Under Washington state law, it is illegal to shoot a wolf unless it is in the act of attacking livestock or an individual.

The report includes a series of images of the dead wolf, as well as the surrounding area and personal statements by the Rasmussens.

Rasmussen first saw the animal early on the morning of Oct. 12 on a ridge on the west side of U.S. Highway 195 about one mile south of Pullman. Rasmussen was hunting with his wife, Shawna, and his children. He used binoculars to observe the animal, and when he realized it wasn't a coyote, began to follow the wolf, according to the report. Rasmussen estimated the wolf was about 500 to 1,000 yards from a horse barn. His wife estimated the wolf was 250 yards from livestock.

Rasmussen tracked the wolf for some time before shooting and wounding the animal from a driveway about 250 yards away with a .30-caliber rifle, which was seized by the officers.

Unsure if the animal was hit, the Rasmussens drove over the hill and found the wolf lying in a stubble field about 300 yards away. That's when Rasmussen fired two more shots at the animal.

Rasmussen then reported the incident to authorities. When Fish and Wildlife investigators arrived, they noticed the wolf was still alive but unable to walk. A Fish and Wildlife officer then fatally shot the wolf as it lay in the stubble field.

The Rasmussens both spoke with the officers.

"Neither expressed any feeling of imminent danger to any livestock or pets (theirs or neighbor's), nor to themselves or any other person," the report said. "They consistently stated that they feared the wolf, if not killed, would eventually become a threat to their livestock, pets or children."

In a personal statement to the agency, Rasmussen said, "I pursued the wolf because we have a horse boarding facility on the direct east side of SR 195 of the wolf sighting, along with four residences that have livestock and children."

Testing confirmed the animal was a pure gray wolf.

[jrebel]

Thanks for posting the full article. 

[jasnt]

Thank you for posting that. Do you have a link?

[T-Dozzer]

 Sounds like  a split second decision. Im sure this has been pretty stressful for them. Hope it works out.

[wolfbait]

Sounds like  a split second decision. Im sure this has been pretty stressful for them. Hope it works out.

 

"They consistently stated that they feared the wolf, if not killed, would eventually become a threat to their livestock, pets or children."

Sounds more like it knowing what we know about wolves now, it's bad enough worrying about your livestock, but your kids also? I would have done the same thing.

I think it's time WDFW start telling the truth about the dangers of these wolves instead of down playing them.

We never did get the full story about the guy who shot the wolf that attacked him in the Pasayten.

Thanks for posting James

[wolfbait]

Thank you for posting that. Do you have a link?

Report: Wolf shot in Whitman County not an 'imminent threat'

Pullman man tells officials he shot wolf for fear of what it might do

Posted: Thursday, February 5, 2015 12:00 am | Updated: 7:13 am, Thu Feb 5, 2015.
By Joshua Babcock, Special to the Daily News | 0 comments

A Whitman County man who shot a gray wolf last fall indicated the animal did not pose an "imminent threat" to humans or livestock, according to a report released by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife after a public records request.
The officers investigating the October shooting said Jonathan M. Rasmussen and his wife cooperated willingly, but did not indicate the wolf posed a threat at the time of the shooting south of Pullman.
http://dnews.com/local/wolf-was-not-an-imminent-threat/article_7f23afb5-21e6-5d85-88ce-7ef2434fae6b.html


PAPER REPORTS PULLMAN WOLF NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT BEFORE IT WAS SHOT
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/paper-reports-pullman-wolf-imminent-threat-shot/

[CAMPMEAT]

When I was in Idaho last year a taxidermist in Weippe had a picture of a 213 lb wolf shot in that area out in the wheat fields....

[rasbo]

The man was being honest, I hope for the best for him and his family..

[goosegetter79]

Hope everything turns out good for them. Went to school with the wife (1 year behind her).

[T-Dozzer]

When I was in Idaho last year a taxidermist in Weippe had a picture of a 213 lb wolf shot in that area out in the wheat fields....

Ive posted this pic before. Same area. These tracks were on top of mine.  I was out in our feild coyote hunting. Not surprised I didn't see any with something this big running around. This was years back before WDFW even admitted wolves were in whitman county.
Im glad this guy did what he did.  I have a little girl that plays in the feild that wouldn't stand a chance if a wolf got the opportunity.
Im about 6'2, 240lbs and I dont have small hands. Glad I was packing.

[timberfaller]

Sorry but, see wolf, see threat!  its that simple!!!

There IS a reason they were thinned out years ago!

The point is that the guy made a statement saying the wolf he shot presented no imminent threat. He clearly did himself no favors by saying that, especially considering that he's under investigation for shooting an endangered species in the State of WA. Whether or not he actually performed a service by his act isn't pertinent. If and when this goes to trial, his comments will not help his defense.

My post wasn't meant to be about the article.

If you "know" wolves,  my statement speaks for itself.

You can debate the wolf "issue" all you want and IT makes for heated debate which some find fulfilling.

There was/is a reason they were/needed to be thinned.  THEY were never needed to be "re-introduced" by man!