Pullman wolf shooting update 14 Sep 2015

[Sumpnneedskillin]

Pullman radio news just posted this on facebook

Pullman area man charged for allegedly killing wolf with expectation of eventual dismissal
 September 14, 2015
 By Evan Ellis

 The Pullman area man accused of shooting a wolf South of town has been charged with a misdemeanor, but the case will likely be resolved in six months with a dismissal. Jonathan Rasmussen was charged Monday with Second Degree Unlawful Taking of an Endangered Species in Whitman County District Court. Rasmussen is accused of fatally shooting a wolf just South of Pullman in October of last year. County Prosecutor Denis Tracy has put the case on hold in what’s called “A continuance for dismissal”. That means if Rasmussen pays a 100 dollars to the county for court costs and does not commit a fish and game violation over the next six months the charge will be dismissed. Tracy notes that this type of resolution is common for misdemeanor hunting violations and that Rasmussen himself was the one who reported the wolf kill. His gun and scope were confiscated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife agents. This case marked the first in the state’s history that a wolf shooting suspect had been identified. Wolves are listed as endangered by the state in Eastern Washington. While the feds have delisted wolves in this part of the state.

[MtnMuley]

 

[gaddy]

I wonder what is the rest of the story ?

[Evil_EdwardO]

Exactly what I predicted.

Maybe the Defending lawyer will file for a continuance and everything will be dropped after 6 months of the initial court date. When Denis Tracy was the public defender back in the 90's he got me out of a felony fireworks charge by filing a continuance with the prosecutor. As long as I had nothing to do with fireworks for 6 months all charges were dropped per say and nothing is on my record.

[JimmyHoffa]

The part the court can't really dismiss is blasting his name out there for the animal fluffer whackos.  They bugged the dentist that shot the lion to the point he had to go into hiding and shut down his business.

[notellumcreek]

I would pay 100$ for a wolf tag in wa right now... Just saying.

[zike]

I would pay 100$ for a wolf tag in wa right now... Just saying.

Let see, $100.00 court fees, atty fees, and loss of rifle. Sounds more like at least a grand.

[cougarbart]

He will get his rifle back!

[2labs]

He will get his rifle back!

Says who? I wouldn't count on that.

[huntnnw]

  Or a year later with court costs

[Sumpnneedskillin]

He will get his rifle back!

According to the latest update on face book he won't get his rifle back.


Local WDFW Commander disappointed with likely outcome in Pullman area wolf killing case
 September 15, 2015
 By Evan Ellis

 The local commander of Washington Fish and Wildlife is disappointed with how the wolf shooting case near Pullman is expected to turn out. On Monday Whitman County Prosecutor Denis Tracy charged Pullman area man Jonathan Rasmussen with misdemeanor Second Degree Unlawful Taking of an Endangered Species. If Rasmussen pays one hundred dollars in court costs and avoids another fish and game violation for the next six months the charge will be dropped. Rasmussen allegedly fatally shot a wolf South of Pullman in October and then called to report the kill. Tracy stated his decision to likely drop the case stems from the fact that primarily the killing was not malicious. Local fish and wildlife agents investigated the case under the command of Captain Dan Rahn who says he was hoping for a heavier punishment. Rasmussen’s rifle and scope were confiscated by state agents. Captain Rahn says those forfeited items continue to be property of the state and will never be returned. Wolves are still protected by the state in Eastern Washington. They are no longer under federal protection in the region

[cougarbart]

a continuance for dismal is a agreement that as long as no violations are done in a certain time period the prosecutor will not charge you with the crime! it means they will dismiss charges and it will not be a conviction and you get any evidence returned! In a game violation only the animal can be confiscated and not returned because of perishable nature!

[Hunterman]

a continuance for dismal is a agreement that as long as no violations are done in a certain time period the prosecutor will not charge you with the crime! it means they will dismiss charges and it will not be a conviction and you get any evidence returned! In a game violation only the animal can be confiscated and not returned because of perishable nature!

I wouldn't hold my breath on the rifle being returned. Talk to RTSprings about getting a rifle back.

Hunterman(Tony)

[Blacktail Sniper]

a continuance for dismal is a agreement that as long as no violations are done in a certain time period the prosecutor will not charge you with the crime! it means they will dismiss charges and it will not be a conviction and you get any evidence returned! In a game violation only the animal can be confiscated and not returned because of perishable nature!

I wouldn't hold my breath on the rifle being returned. Talk to RTSprings about getting a rifle back.

Hunterman(Tony)

Was going to say the same thing!!!

[bigtex]

a continuance for dismal is a agreement that as long as no violations are done in a certain time period the prosecutor will not charge you with the crime! it means they will dismiss charges and it will not be a conviction and you get any evidence returned! In a game violation only the animal can be confiscated and not returned because of perishable nature!

The firearm was seized for forfeiture, not solely seized as evidence. If it was solely seized as evidence then you would be correct. Since it was seized for forfeiture different laws apply.

[bigtex]

While many of you may like this prosecution, such deals are being made for what many of you would call "true poachers" it's starting to actually pay to be a poacher in WA...

[cougarbart]

why would it be seized for forfeiture?  Enforcement officers are to write the citiations and gather evidence! Let the prosecutors and the court systems decide the penalty that's their jobs!

[Blacktail Sniper]

This is how they are doing it:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.070

I think the key point is they didn't merely suspect he shot it, and therefore took it as evidence related to a crime, he admitted shooting it, so they seized it instead.

Read about middle way through paragraph 1...

[bigtex]

why would it be seized for forfeiture?  Enforcement officers are to write the citiations and gather evidence! Let the prosecutors and the court systems decide the penalty that's their jobs!

In fish and wildlife cases firearms, vehicles, boats, etc are seized for forfeiture. The forfeiture is a civil process separate from the criminal prosecution.

[cougarbart]

that seems so wrong! I understand if your convicted then you forfit any tool used in the activity! maybe if they had to get a conviction to keep guns and vehicles they would be more likely to not make deals! didn't mean to sound like a jerk, just don't like people who have a job and still want to tell others how they should do theirs!

[Miles]

While many of you may like this prosecution, such deals are being made for what many of you would call "true poachers" it's starting to actually pay to be a poacher in WA...

Any examples?

[bigtex]

While many of you may like this prosecution, such deals are being made for what many of you would call "true poachers" it's starting to actually pay to be a poacher in WA...

Any examples?

I've written a lot about the change in the Supreme Court rule in WA regarding natural resource offenses. Let's say in 2011 someone shot a non-trophy deer out of season, a WDFW Officer could write the individual a $2,540 criminal citation for take out of season. The $2,000 is a civil fine paid to WDFW, the $540 is a criminal fine paid to the county. If the person pleas guilty/pays the citation they now have a gross misdemeanor conviction on their record.

Starting in 2012 the offender faces a mandatory court appearance, some counties have established guidelines for their prosecutors to use in offenses.

In Kittitas County someone in this case (deer out of season) the standard penalty is 12 months probation, $300 for probation monitoring, and the mandatory civil fine paid to WDFW for big game poaching which in the case of a non-trophy deer is $2,000. If all of that is met then the county will dismiss the case and the person will plea guilty to an infraction (similar to a barbed hook ticket). So no criminal conviction, less money paid out overall, no criminal fine....

[Special T]

While many of you may like this prosecution, such deals are being made for what many of you would call "true poachers" it's starting to actually pay to be a poacher in WA...

Your a true asset to our discussions because you call it straight.

If "True Poachers" are getting this kind of treatment then I think this guys is getting robbed. When sportmen get screwed by the system its hard for us to shed a tear when it allows a "Non True Poacher"  an easy out. Its not sportsmen are getting a fair shake with the department on the wolf issue... I guess there is a little comfort knowing that IF a wolf "Poacher" in the eastern half is caught he will get favoriable treatment like the bunny huggers do on the wetside do.

[cougarbart]

so the county gets 260 dollars less of the money and doesn't have to spend all the time and money to court personel (prosecutor, judge, filing etc) to get a conviction? WDFW still gets their 2 grand? so what is the issue? it sounds to me like the county made a decision how to budget their tax payers money on a ticket that the state is telling them to enforce!  I bet the county would spend thousands of dollars to get a conviction and they receive 540 dollars! That sounds like bad business!

[bigtex]

so the county gets 260 dollars less of the money and doesn't have to spend all the time and money to court personel (prosecutor, judge, filing etc) to get a conviction? WDFW still gets their 2 grand? so what is the issue? it sounds to me like the county made a decision how to budget their tax payers money on a ticket that the state is telling them to enforce!  I bet the county would spend thousands of dollars to get a conviction and they receive 540 dollars! That sounds like bad business!

How about no criminal conviction.... So now in two years if a guy gets busted again there is no criminal conviction on their record, where as prior to 2012 there would be. We now have a ton of fish and wildlife violators out there who were charged, paid a fine to essentially make the charge disappear and don't have a criminal conviction. So in reality there are guys who should have fish and wildlife violation conviction records, but because of our current system they don't have a conviction.

[cougarbart]

well then if theres such a outrage about that then the public will put pressure on the ones they vote in to court positions!  Enforcement has no need to take a no conviction personally, it doesn't change what their job description is. I understand when enforcement has to deal with same individuals over again its frustrating but that's a personal feeling! Many laws in the RCW or WAC that wdfw has to enforcement may not be the views of an enforcement officer but they cannot make a decision on personal feelings and need to enforce the law.  So in the same view do their job and not worry about what the courts do! I just believe a lot of what is wrong in society today is everyone wants a say into everything that is going on! Just like the public thinking enforcement needs to do this and do that, well its administrations job to make sure whats getting done is correct and not what joe blow thinks needs done! im a Bill Belichick fan, 'Do Your Job" and things will work out!lol